Search

Although several different contouring instructional programs are available to radiation oncologists and trainees, very little is known about which methods and resources benefit learners most, and whether some learners may need alternate forms of instruction. This study aimed to determine the factors that were predictors of learners' success in anatomy, radiology, and contouring education.Participants in the online and face-to-face Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp completed pre- and postintervention evaluations that assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and spatial ability. Baseline factors were assessed as predictors of outcomes across multiple educational domains.One hundred and eighty (face-to-face: n = 40; online: n = 140) participants enrolled in the ARC Bootcamp, and 57 (face-to-face: n = 30; online: n = 27) participants completed both evaluations. Of the participants enrolled, 37% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (62%). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, all quartiles (based on baseline performance) improved numerically; however, the largest improvements occurred in learners with the lowest baseline scores (P.001). At the end of the Bootcamp, learners with lower-performing scores did not reach the level of learners with the highest baseline scores (Bonferroni-corrected P.001). Regarding the contouring assessment, improvements were only evident for the participants with lower-performing baseline scores (P.05). Spatial anatomy skills, as measured by the spatial anatomy task, were correlated to contouring ability. Overall, the greatest improvements were seen for learners in postgraduate year 1 to 3, those with no previous rotation experience in a given discipline, and those who attended from other programs (ie, medical physics residents and medical students).The ARC Bootcamp improved all levels of performers' anatomy and radiology knowledge but only lower-performers' contouring ability. The course alone does not help lower-performing learners reach the abilities of higher-performers. The ARC Bootcamp tends to be most beneficial for participants with less radiation oncology experience. Curriculum modifications can be made to help support ARC Bootcamp participants with lower performing scores.

The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) intervention providing integrated education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. To increase access, we launched an online offering in 2019. We evaluated the effect of the online course on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it with the F2F course.Using modules, the online course offers content similar to that of the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019-2020 online course completed pre- and postevaluations assessing anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and course satisfaction.There were 180 individuals enrolled (F2F: n = 40; online: n = 140); 57 participants (F2F: n = 30; online: n = 27) completed both evaluations. The online course had a wider geographic participation (19 countries) than F2F (4 countries). F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%), compared with online (41%). Both cohorts demonstrated similar improvements in self-confidence pertaining to anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, and interpreting radiology images (all P.001). Both the online (mean ± SD improvement: 6.6 ± 6.7 on a 40-point scale; P.001) and F2F (3.7 ± 5.7; P = .002) groups showed anatomy and radiology knowledge improvement. Only the F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (F2F: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale; P = .004; online: 0.07 ± 0.16; P = .076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale; online: 4.5 ± 0.6), stated it would improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5; online: 4.2 ± 0.8), and said they would recommend it to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4; online: 4.4 ± 0.6).The online ARC Bootcamp demonstrated improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The offering had lower completion rates but was more accessible to geographic regions, provided a flexible learning experience, and allowed for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: We previously determined a nonlinear relationship between connexin 43 (Cx43) function and craniofacial phenotypic variation in the mutant mouse model G60S/+, and that this variation was driven by nasal bone deviation. While nonlinearities in the genotype-phenotype map appear to be common, few studies have looked at the developmental processes that underlie this nonlinearity. Here, we investigated the potential tissue-level developmental determinants of the variation in nasal bone phenotype in G60S/+ mice through postnatal development. Results: The deviated nasal bone phenotype arises by postnatal day 21 and becomes more severe by 3 months in G60S/+ mice. Measures of nasal bone remodeling including the number of osteoclasts, mineralizing surface, mineral apposition rate, and bone formation rate are significantly greater in G60S/+ mice compared to wild-type mice at 2 months, but these differences do not correspond with nasal bone deviation. The degree of nasal bone deviation does significantly and negatively correlate with the ratio between nasal bone and cartilaginous nasal septum length. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the mean phenotypic changes observed between G60S/+ and wild-type mice are due to reduced bone growth, but the increased phenotypic variation found within mutant mice is due to discordant growth between nasal cartilage and bone.