David Krug1,2, Rene Baumann3, Thorsten Rieckmann4, Emmanouil Fokas5,6, Tobias Gauer7, Maximilian Niyazi8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. david.krug@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany. david.krug@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 4. Laboratory for Radiobiology and Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 6. Department of Oncology, CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford, UK. 7. Department for Radiotherapy and Radio-Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The working group "Young DEGRO" (yDEGRO) was established in 2014 by the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). We aimed to assess the current situation of young radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiation biologists. METHODS: An online survey that included 52 questions or statements was designed to evaluate topics related to training, clinical duties and research opportunities. Using the electronic mailing list of the DEGRO and contact persons at university hospitals in Germany as well as at four hospitals in Switzerland and Austria, young professionals employed in the field of radiation oncology were invited to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 260 responses were eligible for analysis. Of the respondents 69 % had a professional background in medicine, 23 % in medical physics and 9 % in radiation biology. Median age was 33 years. There was a strong interest in research among the participants; however a clear separation between research, teaching and routine clinical duties was rarely present for radiation oncologists and medical physicists. Likewise, allocated time for research and teaching during regular working hours was often not available. For radiation biologists, a lack of training in clinical and translational research was stated. CONCLUSION: This survey details the current state of education and research opportunities in young radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiation biologists. These results will form the basis for the future working program of the yDEGRO.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The working group "Young DEGRO" (yDEGRO) was established in 2014 by the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). We aimed to assess the current situation of young radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiation biologists. METHODS: An online survey that included 52 questions or statements was designed to evaluate topics related to training, clinical duties and research opportunities. Using the electronic mailing list of the DEGRO and contact persons at university hospitals in Germany as well as at four hospitals in Switzerland and Austria, young professionals employed in the field of radiation oncology were invited to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 260 responses were eligible for analysis. Of the respondents 69 % had a professional background in medicine, 23 % in medical physics and 9 % in radiation biology. Median age was 33 years. There was a strong interest in research among the participants; however a clear separation between research, teaching and routine clinical duties was rarely present for radiation oncologists and medical physicists. Likewise, allocated time for research and teaching during regular working hours was often not available. For radiation biologists, a lack of training in clinical and translational research was stated. CONCLUSION: This survey details the current state of education and research opportunities in young radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiation biologists. These results will form the basis for the future working program of the yDEGRO.
Authors: Richard Pötter; Jesper Grau Eriksen; Andy W Beavis; Mary Coffey; Christine Verfaillie; Jan Willem Leer; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; David A Buck; Anurag K Singh; Mark Engleman; Vipul Thakkar; Steven J Frank; Daniel Flynn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert Semrau; Katja Hansemann; Markus Adam; Nicolaus Andratschke; Thomas Brunner; Frank Heinzelmann; Guido Hildebrandt; Dirk Vordermark; Daniel Zips Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M-L Sautter-Bihl; F Sedlmayer; W Budach; J Dunst; P Feyer; R Fietkau; C Fussl; W Haase; W Harms; M D Piroth; R Souchon; F Wenz; R Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Barry S Rosenstein; Kathryn D Held; Sara Rockwell; Jacqueline P Williams; Elaine M Zeman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilfried Budach; Christiane Matuschek; Edwin Bölke; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Marc D Piroth; Marie-Luise Sautter-Bihl; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Frederik Wenz; Frederick Wenz; Rolf Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 3.621
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: Hans Christiansen; Maximilian Niyazi; Marcel Büttner; Nils Cordes; Tobias Gauer; Daniel Habermehl; Gunther Klautke; Oliver Micke; Matthias Mäurer; Jan Sokoll; Esther Gera Cornelia Troost Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.481