Nicholas G Zaorsky1, Talha Shaikh2, Elizabeth Handorf2, Gary Eastwick3, Adam Hesney4, Eli D Scher5, Ryan T Jones6, Timothy N Showalter6, Vladimir Avkshtol7, Stephanie R Rice8, Eric M Horwitz2, Joshua E Meyer2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: nicholaszaorsky@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; University of Toledo College of Medicine, Toledo, Ohio. 8. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings. METHODS: We developed and beta tested an electronic survey divided into 3 parts: RO job descriptions, appropriateness of RT, and toxicities of RT. The surveys were distributed to 7 medical schools in the United States. A concordance of >90% (either yes or no) among RO attendings in an answer was necessary to determine the correct answer and to compare with other subgroups using a χ(2) test (P<.05 was significant). RESULTS: The overall response rate for ROs, MS1s, MS4s, and PCPs was 26%; n (22 + 315 + 404 + 43)/3004. RT misconceptions decreased with increasing level of training. More than 1 of 10 MSs did not believe that RT alone could cure cancer. Emergent oncologic conditions for RT (eg, spinal cord compression, superior vena cava syndrome) could not be identified by >1 of 5 respondents. Multiple nontoxicities of RT (eg, emitting low-level radiation from the treatment site) were incorrectly identified as toxicities by >1 of 5 respondents. MS4s/PCPs with an RO rotation in medical school had improved scores in all prompts. CONCLUSIONS: Although MS knowledge of general RT principles improves from the first to the fourth year, a large knowledge gap still exists between MSs, current PCPs, and ROs. Some basic misconceptions of RT persist among a minority of MSs and PCPs. We recommend implementing formal education in RO fundamentals during the core curriculum of medical school.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings. METHODS: We developed and beta tested an electronic survey divided into 3 parts: RO job descriptions, appropriateness of RT, and toxicities of RT. The surveys were distributed to 7 medical schools in the United States. A concordance of >90% (either yes or no) among RO attendings in an answer was necessary to determine the correct answer and to compare with other subgroups using a χ(2) test (P<.05 was significant). RESULTS: The overall response rate for ROs, MS1s, MS4s, and PCPs was 26%; n (22 + 315 + 404 + 43)/3004. RT misconceptions decreased with increasing level of training. More than 1 of 10 MSs did not believe that RT alone could cure cancer. Emergent oncologic conditions for RT (eg, spinal cord compression, superior vena cava syndrome) could not be identified by >1 of 5 respondents. Multiple nontoxicities of RT (eg, emitting low-level radiation from the treatment site) were incorrectly identified as toxicities by >1 of 5 respondents. MS4s/PCPs with an RO rotation in medical school had improved scores in all prompts. CONCLUSIONS: Although MS knowledge of general RT principles improves from the first to the fourth year, a large knowledge gap still exists between MSs, current PCPs, and ROs. Some basic misconceptions of RT persist among a minority of MSs and PCPs. We recommend implementing formal education in RO fundamentals during the core curriculum of medical school.
Authors: Michael Oertel; Martina Schmitz; Jan Carl Becker; Hans Theodor Eich; Anna Schober Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Brian J Davis; Paul L Nguyen; Timothy N Showalter; Peter J Hoskin; Yasuo Yoshioka; Gerard C Morton; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: T Sebastian Haupt; Todd Dow; Mike Smyth; J Thomas Toguri; Alysha Roberts; K L Raju; David Bowes Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Charles T Lee; Eddie Zhang; Scott W Keith; Thomas J Galloway Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Pushpa Neppala; Michael V Sherer; Grant Larson; Alex K Bryant; Neil Panjwani; James D Murphy; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-01-12
Authors: Jenna M Kahn; Emma C Fields; Erqi Pollom; Loise Wairiri; Neha Vapiwala; Nima Nabavizadeh; Charles R Thomas; Rachel B Jimenez; Ravi A Chandra Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-08-29