Education and training for radiation scientists: radiation research program and American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, May 12-14, 2003

Developing a Comprehensive Resident-driven Research Training Pathway: A Chief Resident's Perspective

Wide variation exists in research training, experience, opportunities, and exposure across various radiology residency training programs, ranging from having a dedicated research track to no exposure to hypothesis driven projects. Studies conducted at different residency training programs with varied resources and National Institutes of Health funding have shown that resident-driven research initiatives and mentorship programs have the potential to improve research experience during residency training, engage more medical students in research, increase departmental peer-reviewed publications and increase peer-reviewed publications of early-career faculty physicians. In an attempt to standardize the research training during radiology residency, we propose a standardized resident-led program which institutions may adapt, as well as resources that the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A³CR²) might compile in collaboration with other national organizations to improve trainee's research experience during their radiology residency training.

Radiation biology workforce in the United States

In recent decades, the principal goals of participants in the field of radiation biologists have included defining dose thresholds for cancer and non-cancer endpoints to be used by regulators, clinicians and industry, as well as informing on best practice radiation utilization and protection applications. Importantly, much of this work has required an intimate relationship between "bench" radiation biology scientists and their target audiences (such as physicists, medical practitioners and epidemiologists) in order to ensure that the requisite gaps in knowledge are adequately addressed. However, despite the growing risk for public exposure to higher-than-background levels of radiation, e.g. from long-distance travel, the increasing use of ionizing radiation during medical procedures, the threat from geopolitical instability, and so forth, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of qualified radiation biologists in the U.S. Contributing factors are thought to include the loss of applicable training programs, loss of jobs, and declining opportunities for advancement. This report was undertaken in order to begin addressing this situation since inaction may threaten the viability of radiation biology as a scientific discipline.

Radiation and Cancer Biology Educators of Radiation Oncology Residents and the Courses They Teach1

The purpose of this study was to characterize today's radiation and cancer biology educators of radiation oncology residents, and the biology courses they teach. An e-mail list of 133 presumptive resident biology educators was compiled, and they were invited to participate in a 46-item survey. Survey questions were designed to collect information about the educational and academic backgrounds of the educators, how they self-identify, characteristics of the courses they teach, the value that they assign to their teaching activities, their level of satisfaction with their courses and how they see these courses being taught in the future. Findings of this survey were compared and contrasted with prior surveys of biology educators (conducted 12 and 20 years ago, respectively), and with more recent surveys of radiation oncology residents and radiation oncology residency program directors conducted in 2018 and 2019. A total of 67 survey responses were received. Biology educators range in age, academic rank and years of teaching experience from junior (18%) to quite senior (45%). Only about 40% self-identify as radiation biologists, biophysicists or chemists, compared to 56% in 2001. The majority of the others consist of cancer biologists (15%), radiation oncologists (15%) and radiation oncology physician-scientists (16%). Educators prioritize their resident teaching as important or very important. Biology courses are widely variable in contact hours between programs and have not changed significantly over the past 20 years. About 75% of the courses are team-taught, including 15% involving multiple training programs. An average biology course consists of about 42% foundational ("classical") radiobiology, 28% clinical radiobiology and 28% cancer biology. While biology educators and radiation oncology program directors are highly satisfied with their biology courses, approximately a third of residents report being not very, or not at all, satisfied. That fewer biology educators are radiobiologists by training and their courses have remained quite variable in length and content over long periods point to the need for a consensus core curriculum for resident education in radiation and cancer biology. Both current educators and program directors also support making online teaching resources available, diversifying course instructors and consolidating biology teaching across multiple training programs.

Educational dialogue on public perception of nuclear radiation

PURPOSE

Across the world, nuclear radiation and its effects on the population has been the topic of back-burner debates, given the strong emotional connotations involved. We believe that education is crucial for people to make informed decisions regarding nuclear energy. With a science-technology-society (STS) approach, a seminar-style educational module on Radiation and Society was formulated at Tembusu College, National University of Singapore (NUS) in 2015. This primarily aimed to equip students with the necessary analytical tools to assess evidence and thus, evaluate existing assumptions on radiation/nuclear power/nuclear energy, the effects on mankind and societal perception of radiation.

METHODS

Radiation and Society was a seminar-style module which consisted of weekly 3-hour interactive sessions for 13 weeks. Throughout the semester, students were acquainted with themes and concepts related to radiation and society, such as the historical dimensions, radiation science, role in medicine, the psychology of radiation fear, existing radiation myths, complexities in radiation disaster response, communication of risks and emergency preparedness. Discussions during the sessions covered a variety of topics, including ionizing radiation as a result of nuclear fall-out, historical contextualization of nuclear fear, and uses of radiation in (bio)medicine, STS and science communication. Field visits to research reactors and cancer centers were arranged to showcase the diverse applications of nuclear radiation. Experts involved in various related spheres of influence shared their perspectives on matters such as technological developments in emergency preparedness, nuclear reactors, and societal impacts.

RESULTS

The interactive facilitator-student sessions helped educate young minds about nuclear radiation. A post-course survey was conducted to obtain opinions of students on their perceptions of reliability and safety of nuclear energy, effectiveness of the seminar, and where radiation ranked relative to alternative energy sources. Overall findings of the survey indicated that although nuclear energy was perceived as a safe and reliable substitute, renewable energy was considered a better option. Participants felt that, as per the learning objectives, the sessions were effective in improving awareness regarding nuclear energy.

CONCLUSION

This seminar-style module equipped students with the analytical tools required to critically assess sources of knowledge and social perceptions of radiation. In addition to the concluding perceptions toward nuclear energy from the post-course survey, a pre-module/course survey to reveal changes in student attitudes is planned to aid refinement of the course in future iterations. Such educational efforts will allow students to be aware of both the pros and cons of nuclear radiation and thus, construct informed opinions.

Fostering Radiation Oncology Physician Scientist Trainees Within a Diverse Workforce: The Radiation Oncology Research Scholar Track

There is a need to foster future generations of radiation oncology physician scientists, but the number of radiation oncologists with sufficient education, training, and funding to make transformative discoveries is relatively small. A large number of MD/PhD graduates have entered he field of radiation oncology over the past 2 decades, but this has not led to a significant cohort of externally funded physician scientists. Because radiation oncologists leading independent research labs have the potential to make transformative discoveries that advance our field and positively affect patients with cancer, we created the Duke Radiation Oncology Research Scholar (RORS) Program. In crafting this program, we sought to eliminate barriers preventing radiation oncology trainees from becoming independent physician scientists. The RORS program integrates the existing American Board of Radiology Holman Pathway with a 2-year post-graduate medical education instructor position with 80% research effort at the same institution. We use a separate match for RORS and traditional residency pathways, which we hope will increase the diversity of our residency program. Since the inception of the RORS program, we have matched 2 trainees into our program. We encourage other radiation oncology residency programs at peer institutions to consider this training pathway as a means to foster the development of independent physician scientists and a diverse workforce in radiation oncology.

Funding for radiation research: past, present and future

For more than a century, ionizing radiation has been indispensable mainly in medicine and industry. Radiation research is a multidisciplinary field that investigates radiation effects. Radiation research was very active in the mid- to late 20th century, but has then faced challenges, during which time funding has fluctuated widely. Here we review historical changes in funding situations in the field of radiation research, particularly in Canada, European Union countries, Japan, South Korea, and the US. We also provide a brief overview of the current situations in education and training in this field. A better understanding of the biological consequences of radiation exposure is becoming more important with increasing public concerns on radiation risks and other radiation literacy. Continued funding for radiation research is needed, and education and training in this field are also important.

Importance of dosimetry protocol for cell irradiation on a low X-rays facility and consequences for the biological response

PURPOSE

The main objective of radiobiology is to establish links between doses and radiation-induced biological effects. In this context, well-defined dosimetry protocols are crucial to the determination of experimental protocols. This work proposes a new dosimetry protocol for cell irradiation in a SARRP and shows the importance of the modification of some parameters defined in dosimetry protocol for physical dose and biological outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Once all parameters of the configuration were defined, dosimetry measurements with ionization chambers and EBT3 films were performed to evaluate the dose rate and the attenuation due to the cell culture medium. To evaluate the influence of changes in cell culture volume and/or additional filtration, 6-well plates containing EBT3 films with water were used to determine the impact on the physical dose at 80 kV. Then, experiments with the same irradiation conditions were performed by replacing EBT3 films by HUVECs. The biological response was assessed using clonogenic assay.

RESULTS

Using a 0.15 mm copper filter lead to a variation of +1% using medium thickness of 0.104 cm to -8% using a medium thickness of 0.936 cm on the physical dose compare to the reference condition (0.313 cm). For the 1 mm aluminum filter, a variation of +8 to -40% for the same medium thickness conditions has been observed. Cells irradiated in the same conditions showed significant differences in survival fraction, corroborating the effects of dosimetric changes on physical dose.

CONCLUSIONS

This work shows the importance of dosimetry in radiobiology studies and the need of an accurate description of the dosimetry protocol used for irradiation.

The Future of Radiobiology

Innovation and progress in radiation oncology depend on discovery and insights realized through research in radiation biology. Radiobiology research has led to fundamental scientific insights, from the discovery of stem/progenitor cells to the definition of signal transduction pathways activated by ionizing radiation that are now recognized as integral to the DNA damage response (DDR). Radiobiological discoveries are guiding clinical trials that test radiation therapy combined with inhibitors of the DDR kinases DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), ataxia telangiectasia related (ATR), and immune or cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors. To maintain scientific and clinical relevance, the field of radiation biology must overcome challenges in research workforce, training, and funding. The National Cancer Institute convened a workshop to discuss the role of radiobiology research and radiation biologists in the future scientific enterprise. Here, we review the discussions of current radiation oncology research approaches and areas of scientific focus considered important for rapid progress in radiation sciences and the continued contribution of radiobiology to radiation oncology and the broader biomedical research community.

IBPRO - A Novel Short-Duration Teaching Course in Advanced Physics and Biology Underlying Cancer Radiotherapy

This article provides a summary and status report of the ongoing advanced education program IBPRO - Integrated course in Biology and Physics of Radiation Oncology. IBPRO is a five-year program funded by NCI. It addresses the recognized deficiency in the number of mentors available who have the required knowledge and skill to provide the teaching and training that is required for future radiation oncologists and researchers in radiation sciences. Each year, IBPRO brings together 50 attendees typically at assistant professor level and upwards, who are already qualified/certified radiation oncologists, medical physicists or biologists. These attendees receive keynote lectures and activities based on active learning strategies, merging together the clinical, biological and physics underpinnings of radiation oncology, at the forefront of the field. This experience is aimed at increasing collaborations, raising the level and amount of basic and applied research undertaken in radiation oncology, and enabling attendees to confidently become involved in the future teaching and training of researchers and radiation oncologists.

Radiation Brain Drain? The Impact of Demographic Change on U.S. Radiation Protection

The use of radiation has a substantial beneficial impact, particularly in the areas of medicine, energy production, basic science research, and industrial applications. Radiation protection knowledge and experience are required for acquiring and implementing scientific knowledge to protect workers, members of the public, and the environment from potential harmful effects of ionizing radiation while facilitating the beneficial use and development of radiation-based technologies. However, demographic changes are negatively impacting U.S. radiation protection and response capabilities. The number of radiation professionals continues to decrease even as the demand for such professionals is growing. These concerns are most pronounced in the medical, energy, research, and security arenas. Though the United States has been the world leader in radiation protection and radiation sciences for many years, the country has no strategic plan to ensure the maintenance of expertise in radiobiology, radiation physics, and radiation protection. Solving this problem will require a significant increase in federal and state funding as well as formal partnerships and initiatives among academia, professional societies, government, and the private sector.

The Medical Physics Workforce

The medical physics workforce comprises approximately 24,000 workers worldwide and approximately 8,200 in the United States. The occupation is a recognized, established, and mature profession that is undergoing considerable growth and change, with many of these changes being driven by scientific, technical, and medical advances. Presently, the medical physics workforce is adequate to meet societal needs. However, data are emerging that suggest potential risks of shortages and other problems that could develop within a few years. Some of the governing factors are well established, such as the increasing number of incident cancers thereby increasing workload, while others, such as the future use of radiation treatments and changes in healthcare economic policies, are uncertain and make the future status of the workforce difficult to forecast beyond the next several years. This review examines some of the major factors that govern supply and demand for medical physicists, discusses published projections and their uncertainties, and presents other information that may help to inform short- and long-term planning of various aspects of the future workforce. It includes a description of the general characteristics of the workforce, including information on its size, educational attainment, certification, age distribution, etc. Because the supply of new workers is governed by educational and training pathways, graduate education, post-doctoral training, and residency training are reviewed, along with trends in state and federal support for research and education. Selected professional aspects of the field also are considered, including professional certification and compensation. We speculate on the future outlook of the workforce and provide recommendations regarding future actions pertaining to the future medical physics workforce.

The Radiation Stress Response: Of the People, By the People and For the People

The radiation stress response can have broad impact. In this Failla Award presentation it is discussed in three components using terms relevant to the current political season as to how the radiation stress response can be applied to the benefit for cancer care and as service to society. Of the people refers to the impact of radiation on cells, tissues and patients. The paradigm our laboratory uses is radiation as a drug, called "focused biology", and physics as "nano-IMRT" because at the nanometer level physics and biology merge. By the people refers to how the general population often reacts to the word "radiation" and how the Radiation Research Society can better enable society to deal with the current realities of radiation in our lives. For the people refers to the potential for radiation oncology and radiation sciences to improve the lives of millions of people globally who are now beyond benefits of cancer treatment and research.

Specific issues in small animal dosimetry and irradiator calibration

PURPOSE

In response to the increased risk of radiological terrorist attack, a network of Centers for Medical Countermeasures against Radiation (CMCR) has been established in the United States, focusing on evaluating animal model responses to uniform, relatively homogenous whole- or partial-body radiation exposures at relatively high dose rates. The success of such studies is dependent not only on robust animal models but on accurate and reproducible dosimetry within and across CMCR. To address this issue, the Education and Training Core of the Duke University School of Medicine CMCR organised a one-day workshop on small animal dosimetry. Topics included accuracy in animal dosimetry accuracy, characteristics and differences of cesium-137 and X-ray irradiators, methods for dose measurement, and design of experimental irradiation geometries for uniform dose distributions. This paper summarises the information presented and discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Without ensuring accurate and reproducible dosimetry the development and assessment of the efficacy of putative countermeasures will not prove successful. Radiation physics support is needed, but is often the weakest link in the small animal dosimetry chain. We recommend: (i) A user training program for new irradiator users, (ii) subsequent training updates, and (iii) the establishment of a national small animal dosimetry center for all CMCR members.

American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) survey of radiation biology educators in U.S. and Canadian radiation oncology residency programs

PURPOSE

To obtain, in a survey-based study, detailed information on the faculty currently responsible for teaching radiation biology courses to radiation oncology residents in the United States and Canada.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In March-December 2007 a survey questionnaire was sent to faculty having primary responsibility for teaching radiation biology to residents in 93 radiation oncology residency programs in the United States and Canada.

RESULTS

The responses to this survey document the aging of the faculty who have primary responsibility for teaching radiation biology to radiation oncology residents. The survey found a dramatic decline with time in the percentage of educators whose graduate training was in radiation biology. A significant number of the educators responsible for teaching radiation biology were not fully acquainted with the radiation sciences, either through training or practical application. In addition, many were unfamiliar with some of the organizations setting policies and requirements for resident education. Freely available tools, such as the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Radiation and Cancer Biology Practice Examination and Study Guides, were widely used by residents and educators. Consolidation of resident courses or use of a national radiation biology review course was viewed as unlikely by most programs.

CONCLUSIONS

A high priority should be given to the development of comprehensive teaching tools to assist those individuals who have responsibility for teaching radiation biology courses but who do not have an extensive background in critical areas of radiobiology related to radiation oncology. These findings also suggest a need for new graduate programs in radiobiology.

The growth of academic radiation oncology: a survey of endowed professorships in radiation oncology

PURPOSE

The academic health of a medical specialty can be gauged by the level of university support through endowed professorships.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a survey of the 86 academic programs in radiation oncology to determine the current status of endowed chairs in this discipline.

RESULTS

Over the past decade, the number of endowed chairs has more than doubled, and it has almost tripled over the past 13 years. The number of programs with at least one chair has increased from 31% to 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

Coupled with other indicators of academic growth, such as the proportion of graduating residents seeking academic positions, there has been clear and sustained growth in academic radiation oncology.

An analysis of variables influencing the number of radiation overexposure events in Texas from 1970 to 2000

Sources of radiation are used in a variety of modern work settings, including industrial, medical, research, and agricultural applications. Although regulatory controls exist to limit radiation exposures in these different settings, instances of radiation doses in excess of acceptable limits (referred to as overexposures) do occur. A unique study examined overexposure events in Texas over a 45-y period from 1956 to 2001. The primary purpose of the study was to characterize the factors associated with overexposure events. As part of this characterization, an interesting trend in the number of overexposures by year was observed, but not completely explained. The data revealed a dramatic increase in the number of overexposure events, followed by three apparent phases of decline. These declines are of particular interest because, while the increase and subsequent decrease in overexposures occurred, the number of permits to possess radiation sources in Texas generally increased over the same time period. This study focused on the identification of the factors that led to the trends in overexposure events. Data describing the reported overexposure events in Texas from 1970 to 2000 were obtained from the Texas Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control (TDH BRC) and entered into a computerized database. With the assistance of senior members of the TDH BRC, the three primary factors influencing the number of overexposures were identified. These included domestic oil and gas exploration and production from 1970 to 2000, wherein sources of radiation are employed in various operations; the establishment of a training and certification requirement for industrial radiographers during the period of 1986 to 1988; and modification of the applicable regulations between 1992 and 1994. The generally accepted indicator of oil and gas exploration and production activity, known as "rig count," is the measure of the number of active oil and gas exploration and production platforms at any given time. Rig count is a parameter of particular interest in Texas because the state's economy is significantly tied to the market value of this important natural resource. The rig count parameter was shown to have a strong correlation with overexposure events (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.82, p < 0.0001). Interestingly, the sources causing the overexposures indicate that the events stem primarily not from the oil and gas exploration activity itself, but rather from support activities in the form of industrial radiographic procedures. The number of overexposure events was also determined to be influenced by the imposition of the training requirement for radiographers and the modification of the applicable regulations (e.g., the elimination of the quarterly dose limit). The relative magnitude of these influences, however, was far overshadowed by the identified predominant predictor of rig count. The determination of rig count as the significant influencing factor in overexposure events is useful in possibly recognizing the potential for future occurrences of the same nature. This assessment also serves to highlight an apparent significant public health success story, as the number of overexposures per radioactive material licensee is shown to have declined significantly over the 30-y period of study. The factors contributing to this phenomenon are described to serve as a model for use in other settings.

Priority list of research areas for radiological nuclear threat countermeasures

To help the nation prepare for the possibility of a terrorist attack using radiological and nuclear devices, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Homeland Security Council established an interagency working group. The working group deliberated on the research needs for radiological/ nuclear threat countermeasures and identified and prioritized 18 areas for further attention. The highest priorities were given to research on (1) radioprotectors for use prior to exposure; (2) therapeutic agents for postexposure treatment; (3) antimicrobial therapy for infections associated with radiation exposure; (4) cytokines and growth factors; (5) mechanisms of radiation injury at the molecular, cellular, tissue and organism levels; and (6) automation of biodosimetric assays. High priority was given to (1) developing biomarkers for biodosimetry; (2) enhancing training in the radiation sciences; (3) exploring the consequences of combined injury; (4) establishing a repository of information regarding investigational countermeasures; and (5) following the health of an exposed population to better prepare for subsequent events. The research areas that the committee felt required the attention of the radiation research community are described in this report in an effort to inform this community about the needs of the nation and to encourage researchers to address these critical issues.