Search

PURPOSE The landscape of the profession of academic radiation oncology is constantly changing. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce. MATERIALS AND METHODS Internet web site searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. Geographic location was economically stratified (New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC) as previously reported. Race and binary sex were attributed by authors using publicly available information. Univariate analysis involved the chi-square test; a multivariable model considered several factors including rank and sex. RESULTS Of 993 radiation oncologists at CCCs, 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% associate professors, and 21.7% full professors. The average radiation oncologist at a CCC has been a physician for 19.7 (standard deviation 5 11.3) years; 4.7% (47/993) are under-represented minorities. 24.6% of men and 15.5% of women were full professors, a statistically significant difference (P 5 .001). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are under-represented minorities. There are fewer female than male program directors in the most economically stratified locations (P 5 .02). The mean h-index for all faculty is 17.6 (standard deviation 5 16.9), and significantly differs between junior faculty (8.21), associate professors (18.46), and full professors (40.05; P, .0001). It also differs between men (19.35) and women (14.11). On multivariable analysis, sex, academic rank, and a secondary advanced degree were independently significant correlates of h-index. CONCLUSION Among academic radiation oncologists at CCCs, under 5% are under-represented minorities, men are significantly over-represented among senior faculty, and women have significantly lower h-indices than men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre-residency peer-reviewed publications (PRP) have been associated with subsequent resident choice of academic versus private practice career. The evolution of PRP prevalence among radiation oncology resident classes has yet to be examined. A list of radiation oncology residents from the graduating classes of 2016 and 2022 were obtained, and PRP was compiled as the number of publications a resident had listed in PubMed as of the end of the calendar year of residency application. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher's exact test. Analysis of 163 residents from the 2016 class compared with 195 from the 2022 class revealed that the proportion of residents with zero PRP decreased from 46.6% to 23.6% between the 2016 to 2022 classes (p<0.0001), while that of residents with one PRP increased from 17.8% to 19.0% (p>0.05) and with at least two PRP increased from 35.6% to 57.4% (p<0.0001). Residents with a PhD were more likely to have at least two PRP in each class (p<0.0001). As with the class of 2016, there remained no significant difference in PRP by gender for the class of 2022. Over the past six years, PRP has become more prevalent among incoming radiation oncology residents. Residents in the class of 2016 were 180% less likely than the class of 2022 to have at least one PRP, and 60% less likely to have at least two PRP. These findings are indicative of the increasing pressure on medical students to enter residency with a publication background. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We used two models to simulate a proposed noninferiority trial of radiotherapy (RT) omission in low-risk invasive breast cancer to illustrate how modeling could be used to predict the trial's outcomes, inform trial design, and contribute to practice debates.Methods: The proposed trial was a prospective randomized trial of no-RT vs RT in women age 40 to 74 years undergoing lumpectomy and endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I breast cancer with an Oncotype DX score of 18 or lower. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free interval (RFI), including locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer death. Noninferiority required the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the RFI hazard ratio (HR) for no-RT vs RT to be entirely below 1.7. Model inputs included published data. The trial was simulated 1000 times, and results were summarized as percent concluding noninferiority and mean (standard deviation) of hazard ratios for Model GE and Model M, respectively.Results: Noninferiority was demonstrated in 18.0% and 3.7% for the two models. The respective means (SD) of the RFI hazard ratios were 1.8 (0.7) and 2.4 (0.9); most were locoregional recurrences. The mean five-year RFI rates for no-RT vs RT (SD) were 92.7% (2.9%) vs 95.5% (2.2%) and 88.4% (2.0%) vs 94.5% (1.6%). Both models showed little or no difference in breast cancer-specific or overall survival. Alternative definitions of low risk based on combinations of age and grade produced similar results.Conclusions: The proposed trial was unlikely to show noninferiority of omitting radiotherapy even using alternative definitions of low-risk, as the endpoint included local recurrence. Future trials regarding radiotherapy should address absolute reduction in recurrence and impact of type of recurrence on the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radiotherapy after breast conservation has become the standard of care. Prior meta-analyses on effects of radiotherapy predated availability of gene expression profiling (GEP) to assess recurrence risk and/or did not include all relevant outcomes. This analysis used GEP information with pooled individual-level data to evaluate the impact of omitting radiotherapy on recurrence and mortality.Methods: We considered trials that evaluated or administered radiotherapy after lumpectomy in women with low-risk breast cancer. Women included had undergone lumpectomy and were treated with hormonal therapy for stage I, ER+ and/or PR+, HER2- breast cancer with Oncotype scores no greater than 18. Recurrence-free interval (RFI), type of RFI (locoregional or distant), and breast cancer-specific and overall survival were compared between no radiotherapy and radiotherapy using adjusted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: The final sample included 1778 women from seven trials. Omission of radiotherapy was associated with an overall adjusted hazard ratio of 2.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 4.89, P = .003) for RFI. There was a statistically significant increase in any first locoregional recurrence (P = .001), but not distant recurrence events (P = .90), or breast cancer-specific (P = .85) or overall survival (P = .61). Five-year RFI rate was high (93.5% for no radiotherapy vs 97.9% for radiotherapy; absolute reduction = 4.4%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.1%, P = .03). The effects of radiotherapy varied across subgroups, with lower RFI rates for those with Oncotype scores of less than 11 (vs 11-18), older (vs younger), and ER+/PR+ status (vs other).Conclusions: Omission of radiotherapy in hormone-sensitive patients with low recurrence risk may lead to a modest increase in locoregional recurrence event rates, but does not appear to increase the rate of distant recurrence or death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of early-stage breast cancer in older patients is complex and requires a careful balance of the risk of cancer death with the competing risks of comorbidities and treatment-related toxicity in women with largely favorable disease. As the US population continues to age, oncologists will increasingly encounter this clinical challenge. Several strategies involving each core component of breast cancer therapy have been investigated to minimize treatment in these patients while still maintaining acceptable outcomes. These include omission of primary tumor resection, surgical axillary evaluation, systemic chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy, as well as reduction in radiotherapy treatment volume (partial breast irradiation) or total treatment time (hypofractionation). We review these strategies and the literature supporting their use, as well as future directions for treatment minimization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze effects of closure of an academic proton treatment center (PTC) on pediatric case volume, distribution, and resident education.Methods and Materials: This was a review of 412 consecutive pediatric (age ≤18 years) cases treated at a single institution from 2012 to 2016. Residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs for the same years were also analyzed. Characteristics of the patient population and resident case volumes before and after closure of the PTC are reported.Results: Overall pediatric new starts declined by approximately 50%, from 35 to 70 per 6 months in 2012 to 2014 to 22 to 30 per 6 months in 2015 to 2016. Central nervous system (CNS) case volume declined sharply, from 121 patients treated in 2012 to 2015 to 18 patients in 2015 to 2016. In 2012 to 2014 our institution treated 36, 24, and 17 patients for medulloblastoma/intracranial primitive neuroectodermal tumor, ependymoma, and low-grade glioma, respectively, compared with 0, 1, and 1 patient(s) in 2015 to 2016. Forty-nine patients were treated with craniospinal radiation (CSI) from 2012 to 2014, whereas only 2 patients underwent CSI between 2015 and 2016. Hematologic malignancy patient volume and use of total body irradiation remained relatively stable. Patients treated when the PTC was open were significantly younger (9.1 vs 10.7 years, P=.010) and their radiation courses were longer (35.4 vs 20.9 days, P<.0001) than those treated after its closure. Resident case logs showed only a small decline in total pediatric cases, because the percentage of pediatric cases covered by residents increased after PTC closure; however, residents logged fewer CNS cases after PTC closure versus before.Conclusions: Overall pediatric case volume decreased after PTC closure, as did the number of patients treated for potentially curable CNS tumors. Our findings raise important questions regarding resident training in pediatric radiation oncology as these cases become increasingly concentrated at specialized centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]