Gaps in Radiation Therapy Awareness: Results From an Educational Multi-institutional Survey of US Internal Medicine Residents

Demystifying radiation oncology clinical trial concerns for protocol scientific review and institutional review board committee members

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating advanced technologies and treatment approaches involving radiation therapy to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Clinical trials at cancer centers with designation from the National Cancer Institute must undergo scientific review in additional to Institutional Review Board approval. Given the highly specialized nature and rapidly advancing technologies of radiation therapy, and the small number of radiation oncology investigators at some centers, a lack of radiation oncology expertise among reviewers may present challenges at some cancer centers. This commentary aims to provide an overview of radiation therapy and special considerations for radiation oncology research that will serve as a helpful resource in the scientific review of clinical trials involving cancer patients.

Junior Doctor Evaluation of Radiation Oncology Education and Training in Medical Schools and Prevocational Training in Australia

The purpose of this study is to evaluate radiation oncology (RO)-specific education, confidence and knowledge of junior doctors in Australian teaching hospitals. A 38-item web-based survey was emailed to prevocational junior doctors working in Australian hospitals in New South Wales (NSW), Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland (QLD) between November 2017 and January 2018. The survey evaluated RO educational and clinical exposure of participants during medical school, and prevocational training and their confidence and knowledge of the specialty. A total of 183 respondents across 17 Australian hospital networks completed the survey. During medical school, 53.4% had RO incorporated into their formal curriculum, 19.5% had no formal lectures and 51.7% had never visited a RO department. As a junior doctor, 73.8% of respondents did not receive any formal RO education. When compared with other oncology specialties, fewer junior doctors were confident in consulting the RO team (21.0%) compared with medical oncology (42.0%), palliative care (75.2%) and haematology (40.1%). Majority of respondents (61.6%) showed limited understanding of radiation safety. On multivariate sub-group analysis, both confidence and knowledge in RO improved when RO was incorporated into the formal medical school curriculum. This survey highlights the current low confidence and poor knowledge standard amongst Australian junior doctors on RO due to inadequate teaching during medical school and prevocational training and suggests improvement through standardisation of formal RO curriculum teaching within medical school and prevocational training.

A Framework for Sharing Radiation Dose Distribution Maps in the Electronic Medical Record for Improving Multidisciplinary Patient Management

Radiation oncology practices use a suite of dedicated software and hardware that are not common to other medical subspecialties, making radiation treatment history inaccessible to colleagues. A radiation dose distribution map is generated for each patient internally that allows for visualization of the dose given to each anatomic structure volumetrically; however, this crucial information is not shared systematically to multidisciplinary medical, surgery, and radiology colleagues. A framework was developed in which dose distribution volumes are uploaded onto the medical center's picture archiving and communication system (PACS) to rapidly retrieve and review exactly where, when, and to what dose a lesion or structure was treated. The ability to easily visualize radiation therapy information allows radiology clinics to incorporate radiation dose into image interpretation without direct access to radiation oncology planning software and data. Tumor board discussions are simplified by incorporating radiation therapy information collectively in real time, and daily onboard imaging can also be uploaded while a patient is still undergoing radiation therapy. Placing dose distribution information into PACS facilitates central access into the electronic medical record and provides a succinct visual summary of a patient's radiation history for all medical providers. More broadly, the radiation dose map provides greater visibility and facilitates incorporation of a patient's radiation history to improve oncologic decision making and patient outcomes. Keywords: Brain/Brain Stem, CNS, MRI, Neuro-Oncology, Radiation Effects, Radiation Therapy, Radiation Therapy/Oncology, Radiosurgery, Skull Base, Spine, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021 See also commentary by Khandelwal and Scarboro in this issue.

Nationwide Survey of Patients’ Perspectives Regarding Their Radiation and Multidisciplinary Cancer Treatment Experiences

PURPOSE:

The perspectives of patients with cancer about their treatment can inform interventions to improve the approaches of treating oncologists and experiences of future patients. We sought to identify areas where current toxicity management, informed consent processes, and physician-patient communication merit improvement.

METHODS:

In a Web-based survey administered from March to May 2018 using quota-based sampling to draw a nationwide sample of US patients with cancer treated with radiotherapy within the past 5 years, we evaluated patient perceptions of adequacy of information about adverse effects, severity of actual adverse effects experienced, and experiences divergent from expectations.

RESULTS:

Among 403 respondents, 18% felt inadequately informed about what adverse effects to expect from radiotherapy, and 37% experienced radiation adverse effects that they wished they had known more about. Similar proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (36%) and surgery (34%) experienced toxicities related to those treatments that they wished they had known more about. Patients who noted their adverse effects to be minimal versus severe were significantly more likely to feel informed about radiotherapy adverse effects (odds ratio, 13.05; 95% CI, 5.6 to 30.38; P < .001). Across all evaluated measures, a majority of patients indicated that they did not experience the potentially anticipated radiotherapy adverse effect or that it was the same as or better than expected.

CONCLUSION:

This study suggests that experiences with radiation adverse effects generally are congruent with expectations. Nevertheless, improvement of pretreatment counseling across all cancer therapy modalities seems warranted to improve informed decision making and treatment experiences.

Collaborating with the Community: Improving Patient Access to Palliative Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) has an essential role in cancer symptom control but is underutilized in Ontario. This initiative aimed to implement an educational outreach intervention to improve knowledge of and access to PRT among interprofessional palliative health care teams across an Ontario Local Health Integration Network.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A needs assessment was completed from June to September 2018 with interprofessional palliative health care teams. Participants completed a survey to identify perceived opportunities, barriers, and enablers to recommending or referring patients for PRT. Thematic analysis informed content of the educational outreach intervention and included how to access PRT, common indications, case studies, and side-effect management after completing PRT. The educational outreach intervention was completed from October 2018 to January 2019. Participants completed a survey, and results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The number of patients who received PRT was determined by cross-referencing the regional database with the radiation oncology information system.

RESULTS

Although 22.9% of participants had previously recommended or referred patients, 96.2% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they are likely to recommend or refer patients for PRT after the educational outreach intervention (n = 131). An increase was observed in the number of patients receiving PRT from the community during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

The educational outreach intervention improved knowledge and the likelihood of interprofessional palliative health care teams providing access to PRT for patients in the community. More patients now receive PRT, conveying improved symptom control and quality of life.

Characterizing Palliative Radiotherapy Education in Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship: A Survey of Fellowship Program Directors

Background: Educational deficiencies among hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians contribute to suboptimal utilization of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) for patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To survey HPM fellowship program directors regarding the need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HPM fellowship program directors in June 2018. We used a 5-point Likert-type scale to assess agreement with statements related to PRT education. Setting/Subjects: Program directors for all United States Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited HPM fellowship programs with at least one enrolled fellow at the time of survey distribution were included. Results: Eighty-one of 120 eligible program directors completed the survey (68% response rate). Nearly all of the respondents agreed that HPM physicians should possess a working knowledge of PRT and that the principles of PRT should be formally taught in HPM fellowship. Thirty percent of HPM fellowship programs, however, lacked a PRT curriculum and only 14% of programs provided more than two hours of PRT education. Limited didactic time, lack of interest among fellows, and lack of collaboration with radiation oncologists were not perceived to be significant barriers to incorporating PRT education into HPM fellowship. More than 75% of program directors indicated that they would consider implementing a PRT curriculum designed specifically for HPM physicians if one were available. Conclusion: There is a need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. This need may be best addressed by developing a widely accessible PRT curriculum designed to meet the needs of HPM physicians.

Palliative Radiotherapy Education for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellows: A National Needs Assessment

Background: Insufficient knowledge of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) among hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians is thought to be a barrier to the provision of high-quality palliative care. Objective: To assess the need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Design: A cross-sectional survey of HPM fellows was conducted in June 2018. Setting/Subjects: The survey was distributed to accredited HPM fellowship programs in the United States for distribution to enrolled fellows; 114 fellows responded to the survey. Results: Nearly all respondents agreed that the principles of PRT should be taught in HPM fellowship, yet 51% had received no PRT education and 35% had received only one or two hours. Only 25% of respondents rated their working knowledge of PRT as sufficient, 40% felt confident in identifying radiation oncology emergencies or managing radiotherapy side effects, and 52% felt confident in assessing which patients to refer for radiotherapy. More than 75% agreed that were they more knowledgeable about PRT, they would be more likely to consider referral to radiation oncology, to collaborate with radiation oncologists, and to advocate for a short course of treatment based on a patient's prognosis or goals or care. Fellows who received PRT education in fellowship had significantly greater knowledge of and more favorable attitudes toward the use of radiotherapy. This difference was the greatest among fellows who had received at least five hours of PRT education. Conclusion: There is a need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Efforts to address this need may lead to more appropriate utilization of PRT for patients with advanced cancer.

Oncology Curricula in Postgraduate General Dentistry Programs: a Survey of Residency Program Directors

Management of patients undergoing treatment for cancer requires a multidisciplinary team including general dentistry providers; however, the relative knowledge and training of general dentists in the management of this patient population are relatively unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the oncology curricula of postgraduate general dentistry training programs, from the perspective of the program directors, to better understand the opportunities for and/or barriers to dental care for cancer patients. A cross-sectional survey was sent to the 275 Commission on Dental Accreditation-accredited programs; 82 program directors responded (response rate, 30%). More than 50% of respondents indicated "none" or "little" curricular emphasis on cancer biology, bone marrow transplantation, immunotherapy, or prosthetics for use during head and/or neck surgery. Conversely, more than 50% of respondents indicated "moderate" or "substantial" emphasis on acute oral effects of cancer-related therapy, long-term oral effects of cancer-related therapy, antiresorptive medication pharmacology, radiotherapy techniques and biological effects, and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Residents had the most experience with radiotherapy patients and the least with bone marrow or transplantation patients. Overall, general dentistry program directors were enthusiastic to participate in the multidisciplinary team but reported challenges to including oncology curricula in residency training programs. Training for general dentistry providers in formalized postgraduate residency programs may be variable or limited-as a result, communication regarding patient management is critical. Opportunities exist to enhance the general dentistry curricula and, thereby, improve access to dental care for patients receiving treatment for cancer.

An interactive contouring module improves engagement and interest in radiation oncology among preclinical medical students: Results of a randomized trial

PURPOSE

Studies have shown significant gaps in knowledge of radiation therapy among medical students and primary care providers. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of an interactive contouring module on knowledge and interest in radiation oncology among preclinical medical students.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Second-year medical students at the University of California, San Diego were randomized to participate in an interactive contouring exercise or watch a traditional didactic lecture on radiation oncology. Participants completed knowledge tests and surveys at baseline, immediately following the exercise, and 3 months later. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pre- and posttest comparisons and Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-three medical students participated in the trial (21 in the didactic group; 22 in the contouring group). Students completing the contouring module demonstrated similar overall knowledge improvement compared with the traditional didactic group (+8.6% vs +6.6%, not significant) but endorsed greater engagement on a 5-point Likert-type scale (3.10 vs 3.76, P = .02). At 3-month follow-up, there was a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall knowledge in the contouring group (43% vs 51%, P = .10), with a significance difference in a subset of questions on knowledge of the process of radiation therapy as well as side effects (51% vs 75%, P = .002). Students in the contouring group demonstrated more interest in pursuing a clinical radiation oncology rotation (2.52 vs 3.27, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an interactive contouring module was an effective method to teach preclinical medical students about radiation oncology, with no significant difference in knowledge gained compared with a traditional didactic lecture; however, higher engagement among students completing the contouring module led to improved retention of knowledge of radiation side effects and greater interest in radiation oncology. These data suggest a potential benefit of integrating an interactive radiation oncology module into the preclinical medical school curriculum.