Search

Introduction: The Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Training Program has undergone major changes to align with pedagogical principles and best-evidence practice. The curriculum was designed around the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists framework and involved structural programme changes and new in-training assessment. This paper summarises the work of programme design and implementation and presents key findings from an evaluation of the revised programme.Methods: An independent team conducted the evaluation during the last year of the first 5-year curriculum cycle. Opinions were sought from trainees, supervisors and directors of training (DoTs) through online surveys, focused interviews and group consultations. One hundred nineteen participated in surveys; 211 participated in consultations. All training networks were represented.Results: The new curriculum was viewed favourably by most participants with over 90% responding that it 'provided direction in attaining competencies'. Most (87/107; 81%) said it 'promotes regular, productive interaction between trainees and supervisors'. Adequacy of feedback to trainees was rated as only 'average' by trainees/trainers in one-third of cases. Consultations revealed this was more common where trainers were less familiar with curriculum tools. Half of DoTs/supervisors felt better supported. Nearly two-third of all responders (58/92; 63%) stated that clinical service requirements could be met during training; 17/92 (18.5%) felt otherwise. When asked about 'work-readiness', 59/90 (66%) respondents, including trainees, felt this was improved.Conclusion: Findings suggest that the 'new' curriculum has achieved many of its aims, and implementation has largely been successful. Outcomes focus future work on better supporting trainers in using curriculum tools and providing useful feedback to trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Faculty of Radiation Oncology (FRO) of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) currently allows several pathways for trainees to satisfy its mandatory original research requirement. In practice, the majority need to have a manuscript 'accepted to peer review' by one of five specified radiation oncology (RO) journals before being eligible to sit for the final examination. The purpose of this work was to determine the corresponding trainee research requirements of the other Australasian medical colleges and compare them with FRO as a companion to a planned FRO trainee survey on the same topic.Methods: The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) website lists 16 colleges conferring medical fellowships, four of which have various sub-faculties, and the New Zealand Medical Council website lists three other separate colleges (69 entities in all). Their individual websites were interrogated to determine and tabulate their respective trainee research requirements.Results: 7/69 entities (10%) do not include a research component in their published training programme. Four (5.8%) mandate actual publication of a manuscript (and additionally, FRO does also require this for journals other than the five specified). The other training programmes have less rigorous submission requirements, for example internal assessment of a research report. In addition, many allow attainment of a research higher degree (including FRO) or multiple other options as an alternative pathway. Eleven entities (including FRO) stipulate that their requirement needs to be satisfied before sitting for the exit examination.Conclusions: The current FRO trainee research requirement is at the more stringent end of the Australasian spectrum. This has advantages and disadvantages for RO trainees and their departments. The data presented here and the trainee survey will inform the RANZCR Training and Assessment Review project, ongoing at the time of writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We tested the ability of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy (PPRT) to support its timely health economic evaluation.Methods: Treatment plans produced using FROGG guidelines provided dosimetry parameters for both techniques at 64 Gy and 70 Gy and were also used to model early and late outcome probabilities. Clinical parameters were derived from early toxicity and quality of life patient data, systematic literature review and expert opinion. Dosimetry parameters were correlated with the measures of clinical efficacy and safety.Results: Data from two patient cohorts (29 and 27 respectively) were collected within the project timeframe, providing evidence for acute toxicity and quality of life, and dosimetric comparisons. Relative rates of tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue control probability (NTCP) modelling were readily derived from the planning exercise and demonstrated advantages in uncomplicated TCP for IMRT over 3DCRT, predominantly due to normal tissue sparing. The safety of IMRT delivery was demonstrated with TCP uncompromised by IMRT protocol violations, which achieved rectal sparing only by reducing minimum target dose and coverage.Conclusion: Sources of desk-top and patient-based evidence were successfully used to demonstrate potential improved clinical efficacy and safety of applying dose escalation using IMRT instead of 3DCRT in PPRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]