Wee Loon Ong1,2, Adam Byrne3, Revadhi Chelvarajah4, Caris Chong5,6, James Gallo7,8, Mollie Kain9, Jeremy Khong3, Eileen O'Reilly9, Cristian Udovicich10,11, Chamitha Weeransinghe12, Ta-Chi Zhong Hu4,13, Andrej Bece13. 1. Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 4. Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Genesis Cancer Care, Perth, WA, Australia. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 7. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 8. University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. 9. Regional Cancer and Blood Service, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 10. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 11. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 12. Chris O'Brien Life House and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. 13. St George Cancer Care Centre, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate brachytherapy training experience among trainees and fellows trained through the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). METHODS: All current trainees and fellows (who obtained fellowship from 2015 onwards) were sent an online anonymous questionnaire on various aspects of brachytherapy training, including number of cases observed/ performed, opinions on brachytherapy assessment during training, barriers to brachytherapy training and future role of brachytherapy. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 24% (40/161 trainees, 30/126 fellows). Of the 70 respondents, 50 (71%), 38 (54%) and 43 (61%) reported to have received formal brachytherapy teaching from radiation oncologists, radiation therapists and medical physicists respectively. Most respondents had exposure to gynaecology brachytherapy - two-thirds of trainees and all fellows have performed at least one gynaecology brachytherapy procedure. Prostate brachytherapy exposure was more limited - by the end of training, 27% and 13% of fellows did not have exposure to LDR and HDR prostate brachytherapy. More than two-thirds indicated there should be a minimum number of brachytherapy case requirements during training, and half indicated that trainees should be involved in ≥6 gynaecology brachytherapy procedures. Barriers affecting training include lack of caseload (70%) and perceived decreasing role of brachytherapy (66%). Forty-three percent of respondents were concerned about the decline in brachytherapy utilisation. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey on brachytherapy training experience among RANZCR trainees and fellows. It highlighted limited brachytherapy exposure during RANZCR training, and the need to revisit brachytherapy training requirement in the current training programme, along with long-term brachytherapy workforce planning.
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate brachytherapy training experience among trainees and fellows trained through the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). METHODS: All current trainees and fellows (who obtained fellowship from 2015 onwards) were sent an online anonymous questionnaire on various aspects of brachytherapy training, including number of cases observed/ performed, opinions on brachytherapy assessment during training, barriers to brachytherapy training and future role of brachytherapy. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 24% (40/161 trainees, 30/126 fellows). Of the 70 respondents, 50 (71%), 38 (54%) and 43 (61%) reported to have received formal brachytherapy teaching from radiation oncologists, radiation therapists and medical physicists respectively. Most respondents had exposure to gynaecology brachytherapy - two-thirds of trainees and all fellows have performed at least one gynaecology brachytherapy procedure. Prostate brachytherapy exposure was more limited - by the end of training, 27% and 13% of fellows did not have exposure to LDR and HDR prostate brachytherapy. More than two-thirds indicated there should be a minimum number of brachytherapy case requirements during training, and half indicated that trainees should be involved in ≥6 gynaecology brachytherapy procedures. Barriers affecting training include lack of caseload (70%) and perceived decreasing role of brachytherapy (66%). Forty-three percent of respondents were concerned about the decline in brachytherapy utilisation. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey on brachytherapy training experience among RANZCR trainees and fellows. It highlighted limited brachytherapy exposure during RANZCR training, and the need to revisit brachytherapy training requirement in the current training programme, along with long-term brachytherapy workforce planning.