Search

Purpose: Most medical students have limited exposure to radiation oncology (RO) before deciding which specialty to choose for residency. This may limit the number and diversity of RO applicants. The purpose of this study was to determine students’ views on a combined pathway program of RO with internal medicine (IM), as well as other related medical specialties, as a potential means of overcoming barriers to interest in RO and the early decision point to solo training in a highly specialized field. Methods and Materials: In July to August 2022, all 299 United States student and postgraduate year 1 members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology were sent an electronic survey assessing their views on advantages and disadvantages of a combined IM/RO training pathway, and interest in several options of combined pathway programs. Results: Eighty participants completed the survey (response rate 27%). Thirty-four (43%) were very or extremely interested in IM/RO residency (median Likert-type rating 3, IQR 2-4). The most important potential advantages of an IM/RO pathway included greater flexibility in employment options (n = 51, 64%), enhanced general medical knowledge to facilitate ambitions in other career pathways (n = 46, 58%), improved patient care (n = 43, 54%), and having a pathway for combined hematologic/oncology and RO board certification (n = 46, 58%). In comparison to IM/RO, participants were significantly more interested in a combined RO and hematology/oncology program (median Likert-type rating 5, IQR 5-5, P = .005). Among the subgroup of 26 survey participants who believed it less likely they would apply for RO residency, 18 (69%) thought an IM/RO pathway would increase their interest in RO (median Likert-type rating 4, IQR 3-5). Interest in IM/RO did not differ by gender, race, or ethnicity. Conclusions: Combined training pathways involving RO were viewed positively by survey respondents, and may be particularly appealing to those less committed to a career in RO. Further research will help guide recommendations for the creation of these programs.

Purpose: Although both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities. Methods: The data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS. Results: Of 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028). Conclusions: Both PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Purpose: Long-term data regarding the disease control outcomes of proton beam therapy (PBT) for patients with favorable risk intact prostate cancer (PC) are limited. Herein, we report our institution's long-term disease control outcomes in PC patients with clinically localized disease who received PBT as primary treatment. Methods: One hundred sixty-six favorable risk PC patients who received definitive PBT to the prostate gland at our institution from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively assessed. The outcomes studied were biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, distant failure, PC-specific survival, and overall survival. Patterns of failure were also analyzed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate independent predictors of BFFS. Results: The median length of follow-up was 8.3 years (range, 1.2–10.5 years). The majority of patients had low-risk disease (58%, n = 96), with a median age of 64 years at the onset of treatment. Of 166 treated men, 13 (7.8%), 8 (4.8%), 2 (1.2%) patient(s) experienced biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, respectively. Regional failure was seen in an obturator lymph node in 1 patient and the external iliac lymph nodes in the other. None of the patients experienced distant failure. There were 5 (3.0%) deaths, none of which were due to PC. The 5- and 8-year BFFS rate were 97% and 92%, respectively. None of the clinical disease characteristics or treatment-related factors assessed were associated with BFFS on multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling (all P >.05). Conclusion: Disease control rates reported in our assessment of PBT were similar to those reported in previous clinically localized intact PC analyses, which used intensity-modulated radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy. In addition, BFFS rates were similar, if not improved, to previous PBT studies.

Proton therapy is a promising but controversial treatment in the management of prostate cancer. Despite its dosimetric advantages when compared with photon radiation therapy, its increased cost to patients and insurers has raised questions regarding its value. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have been published documenting the efficacy and safety of proton therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer and for patients requiring adjuvant or salvage pelvic radiation after surgery. The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Genitourinary Subcommittee intends to address current proton therapy indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost effectiveness. We will also discuss the current landscape of clinical trials. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and research directions.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The radiation oncology workforce in the United States is comparatively less diverse than the U.S. population and U.S. medical school graduates. Workforce diversity correlates with higher quality care and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether student members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) are any more diverse than resident members-in-training using the recently established medical student membership category. Methods and Materials: Self-reported sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity, medical school, and degree(s) earned for all medical students (n = 268) and members-in-training (n = 713) were collected from the ASTRO membership database. International members were excluded. The χ2 test was used to assess for differences between subgroups. Results: Compared with members-in-training, student members were more likely to be female (40.0% vs 31.5%, P = .032), black or African American (10.7% vs 4.8%, P = .009), candidates for or holders of a DO rather than MD degree (5.2% vs 1.5%, P = .002), and from a U.S. medical school that is not affiliated with a radiation oncology residency program (30.5% vs 20.9%, P = .001). There was no significant difference in self-reported Hispanic ethnicity (7.3% vs 5.4%, P = .356). There were no indigenous members in either category assessed. Conclusions: Medical student members of ASTRO are more diverse in terms of black race, female sex, and osteopathic training, though not in terms of Hispanic ethnicity or nonmultiracial indigenous background, than the members-in-training. Longitudinal engagement with these students and assessment of the factors leading to specialty retention versus attrition may increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in radiation oncology.

Despite the fact that a large portion of medical students pursue training in a cancer-related discipline, oncology is emphasized to a disproportionately lesser extent than are other disciplines in medical school. Medical students have wide gaps in their oncology-specific knowledge, and undergraduate medical education fails to address the multidisciplinary nature of oncology. To address these shortcomings and improve medical students’ understanding of the multidisciplinary nature of oncology, we have instituted a clinical oncology elective for medical students: an optional, 2-day session held after classes and promoted by student interest groups. Day 1 comprised a series of short faculty lectures beginning with the concepts of and rationale for staging, an approach to breaking bad news, guideline-based management, and multidisciplinary tumor board discussion. Three multidisciplinary tumor boards were simulated on the second day, run by attending surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists with expertise in the cancer of interest, using real patient examples. Ultimately, the clinical oncology elective shows medical students how the oncology care team works together to care for cancer patients.

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess the terminology used to describe the different oncologic subspecialties at academic institutions in the United States and determine whether the use of the term “oncologist” to describe a medical oncologist (MO) may affect the multidisciplinary care of patients with cancer. Methods and Materials: An electronic survey was sent to chairs and program directors at all 94 academic radiation oncology departments in the United States. Questions assessed the terminology used to describe the oncologic subspecialties in their hospital’s electronic medical record system, their views on how that terminology may affect referral patterns, and the perception of radiation oncologists’ (ROs) role in patient care. Results: Responses were received from 40 institutions (response rate, 42.6%). Fifteen percent of hospital electronic medical record systems used the term “oncology” instead of “medical oncology” (51%) or “hematology/oncology” (28%). Describing MOs simply as “oncologists” was thought to more likely affect patient views of MOs as the primary decision maker in their cancer care (mean Likert-type rating, 3.43) than it would affect the probability of up-front multidisciplinary referrals (mean Likert-type rating, 2.69). Patient perceptions of ROs as equal partners in care were thought to be less associated with the terminology used to describe MOs (mean Likert-type rating, 3.15) than the behavior of ROs in patient care (mean Likert-type rating, 4.65; P < .001), the attitude of MOs toward ROs (mean Likert-type rating, 4.59; P < .001), and the involvement of ROs in the initial new patient visits rather than a downstream referral (mean Likert-type rating, 3.95; P < .001). Conclusions: The terminology used to describe MOs was thought to affect patient and provider perceptions of RO, but less so than other patient-provider interaction factors.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected medical student clerkships and education around the country. A virtual medical student clerkship was created to integrate didactic education with disease specific lectures for medical students, contouring, and hands on learning with telehealth. Twelve medical students in their 3rd and 4th year were enrolled in this 2 week elective from April 27, 2020 to June 5, 2020. There was significant improvement of overall knowledge about the field of radiation oncology from pre elective to post elective (P < .001). Feedback included enjoying direct exposure to contouring, telehealth, and time with residents. Overall this 2 week rotation was successful in integrating radiation oncology virtually for medical students. This is now being expanded to multiple institutions as an educational resource and future rotations for medical students.

Purpose: Residency training environments can differ significantly; therefore, resident satisfaction may vary widely among programs. Here, we sought to examine several variables in program satisfaction through a survey of radiation oncology (RO) trainees in the United States. Methods and materials: An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, internet-based survey was developed and distributed to U.S. residents in RO in September 2016. This email-based survey assessed program-specific factors with regard to workload, work-life balance, and education as well as resident-specific factors such as marital status and postgraduate year. Binomial multivariable regression assessed the correlations between these factors and the endpoint of resident-reported likelihood of selecting an alternative RO residency program if given the choice again. Results: A total of 215 residents completed the required survey sections, representing 29.3% of U.S. RO residents. When asked whether residency allowed for an adequate balance between work and personal life, the majority of residents (75.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, but a minority (9.3%) did not feel that residency allowed for sufficient time for personal life. The majority of residents (69.7%) indicated that they would choose the same residency program again, but 12.2% would have made a different choice. Almost three-fourths of residents (73.0%) felt that faculty and staff cared about the educational success of residents, but 9.27% did not. Binomial multivariable regression revealed that senior residents (odds ratio: 6.70; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-22.4) were more likely to desire a different residency program. In contrast, residents who reported constructive feedback use by the residency program (odds ratio:0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.91) were more satisfied with their program choice. Conclusions: Most RO residents reported satisfaction with their choice of residency program, but seniors had higher rates of dissatisfaction. Possible interventions to improve professional satisfaction include incorporating constructive resident feedback to enhance the program. The potential impact of job market pressures on seniors should be further explored.

Purpose: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. Methods and materials: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

Purpose: Despite increasing use, proton therapy (PT) remains a relatively limited resource. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and demographic differences in PT use for prostate cancer compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at a single institution. Methods and materials: All patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (N = 633) who underwent definitive radiation therapy between 2010 and 2015 were divided into PT (n = 508) and IMRT (n = 125) comparison groups and compared using χ2 and independent sample t tests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the associations between PT use and demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. Results: The PT and IMRT cohorts varied by age, race, poverty, distance, treatment year, and treating physician. Patients who underwent IMRT were more likely to be older (mean age, 66 vs. 68 years), black (51% vs. 75%), and living in poverty or close to the facility (mean distance between residence and facility, 90 vs. 21 miles; P < .05). Prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and International Index of Erectile Function were significantly higher in the IMRT cohort (P < .05), but insurance type, risk group, tumor stage, Gleason score, and patient-reported urinary and bowel scores did not differ significantly (P > .05). Patients who underwent PT were more likely to receive hypofractionated therapy and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .01). On multivariable analysis, black (odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.57) and other race (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90); distance (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.24); treatment years 2011 (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.23-10.6), 2012 (OR, 8.27; 95% CI, 3.43-19.9), and 2014 (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 1.94-10.2) relative to 2010; and a single treating physician (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81) relative to the reference physician with the highest rate of use were associated with PT use, whereas clinical factors such as prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, International Index of Erectile Function, and androgen deprivation therapy were not. Conclusion: Sociodemographic disparities exist in PT use for prostate cancer at an urban academic institution. Further investigation of potential barriers to access is warranted to ensure equitable distribution across all demographic groups.

Purpose: There is growing evidence supporting incorporating multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans into risk stratification, active surveillance, and treatment paradigms for prostate cancer. The purpose of our study was to determine whether demographic disparities exist in staging MRI utilization for prostate cancer patients. Methods and materials: An institutional database of 705 nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy from 2005 through 2013 was used to identify patients undergoing versus not undergoing pretreatment diagnostic prostate mpMRI. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression evaluated the relationship of clinical and demographic characteristics with MRI utilization. Results: All demographic variables assessed, except the other race category, were significantly associated with MRI utilization (all P < .05), including age (odds ratio [OR], 0.92), black race (OR, 0.51), poverty (OR, 0.53), closer distance to radiation facility (OR, 1.79), and nonprivate primary insurance (OR, 0.57) on univariable analysis, while clinical stage T3 (OR, 3.37) was the only clinical characteristic. On multivariable analysis stratified by D'Amico risk group, age remained significant across all risk groups, whereas the black versus white racial (OR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.55) and nonprivate versus private insurance type (OR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86) disparities persisted in the low-risk group. Clinical stage T3 remained associated in the high-risk group. For race specifically, the percentages of whites, blacks, and others undergoing MRI in the overall cohort and by risk group were, respectively: overall, 80% (343/427), 68% (156/231), and 85% (40/47); low risk, 86%, 56%, and 63%; intermediate risk, 79%, 72%, and 95%; and high risk, 72%, 72%, and 100%. Conclusions: In this urban, academic center cohort, older patients across all risk groups and black or nonprivate insurance patients in the low risk group were less likely to undergo staging prostate MRI scans. Further research should investigate these differences to ensure equitable utilization across all demographic groups considering the burden of prostate cancer disparities.