A Nationwide Medical Student Assessment of Oncology Education

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the USA, but there is minimal data on how oncology is taught to medical students. The purpose of this study is to characterize oncology education at US medical schools. An electronic survey was sent between December 2014 and February 2015 to a convenience sample of medical students who either attended the American Society for Radiation Oncology annual meeting or serve as delegates to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Information on various aspects of oncology instruction at participants’ medical schools was collected. Seventy-six responses from students in 28 states were received. Among the six most common causes of death in the USA, cancer reportedly received the fourth most curricular time. During the first, second, and third years of medical school, participants most commonly reported 6–10, 16–20, and 6–10 h of oncology teaching, respectively. Participants were less confident in their understanding of cancer treatment than workup/diagnosis or basic science/natural history of cancer (p?<?0.01). During the preclinical years, pathologists, scientists/Ph.D.’s, and medical oncologists reportedly performed the majority of teaching, whereas during the clinical clerkships, medical and surgical oncologists reportedly performed the majority of teaching. Radiation oncologists were significantly less involved during both periods (p?<?0.01). Most schools did not require any oncology-oriented clerkship. During each mandatory rotation, <20 % of patients had a primary diagnosis of cancer. Oncology education is often underemphasized and fragmented with wide variability in content and structure between medical schools, suggesting a need for reform.     

The Impact of a Radiation Oncologist led Oncology Curriculum on Medical Student Knowledge

Medical students at our institution all take a pre-clinical oncology course as well as a clinical radiation oncology didactic session during their clinical curriculum. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of the radiation oncology didactic on medical student knowledge of core oncology concepts. All students received a standardized didactic lecture introducing students to core concepts of general oncology and radiation. We administered an 18-question pretest and a posttest examining student knowledge between 2012 and 2015. Changes in student responses between pre-test and post-tests were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the didactic session. Over the course of three years, 319 (64.4%) of 495 students who completed the Radiology block completed both the pre-test and post-test. The average student test grade improved from 62.0% on the pretest to 69.6% on the posttest (p < 0.001). By category, students increased their score from 81.4% to 89.8% (p < 0.001) in general oncology, from 59.9% to 69.9% (p < 0.001) in breast oncology, from 43.0% to 51.0% (p < 0.001) in prostate oncology, and from 71.3% to 75.7% (p = 0.003) in radiation oncology. Students showed increases in knowledge across general oncology, prostate oncology, breast oncology, and radiation oncology.     

知识经济是肿瘤医学期刊的活力之源

通过介绍《抗癌》杂志的办刊经验,阐述了知识经济条件下的肿瘤医学期刊的运作观念及其模式。     

Medical Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Oncology Education in the UK

AimsThe British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies (BONUS) surveyed students who attended an oncology revision day to determine their views on the current quantity, quality and type of curriculum-based oncology teaching they have experienced.Materials and methodsStudents attending two BONUS revision days received a questionnaire assessing their experience of oncology teaching within the medical curriculum and interest in pursuing a future career in oncology using a 10-point Likert scale. Data were collected with informed consent to be anonymised and used for research. Student demographics and qualitative and quantitative data about experiences of oncology education were analysed.ResultsIn total, 451 students registered to attend the revision days. After removal of duplicates, non-responders and non-UK participants, responses from 153 students studying across years 1–6 at 22 UK medical schools were analysed. The mean quantity of oncology lectures students reported receiving was 8.9 hours and the mean quantity of clinic/ward-based oncology teaching was 7.5 hours. Ninety (62.1%) of the 145 students who responded to the relevant question reported that they had received dedicated teaching in oncology. Students who had received dedicated oncology teaching reported a statistically significantly higher mean quality 6.1 (95% confidence interval 5.6–6.5) versus 5.0 (95% confidence interval 4.3–5.5; P = 0.003) and quantity 5.2 (95% confidence interval 4.7–5.6) versus 4.3 (95% confidence interval 3.7–4.9; P = 0.03) of oncology teaching compared with those who had not received this.ConclusionAppropriate oncology education is essential for all medical students due to the high prevalence of cancer. All future doctors need the appropriate knowledge and communication skills to care for cancer patients. Our analysis provides quantitative evidence to support the value of specialist oncology teaching within the medical school curriculum in improving student-reported experience. National student-led revision days and events may widen interest in a future career in oncology and aid collaboration between oncology societies. It is important for the general undergraduate medical curriculum to integrate specialty content. An integrated curriculum should facilitate a holistic approach that spans prevention, screening, treatment and palliation rather than being split by subspeciality.     

Radiation Oncology: a Primer for Medical Students

Radiation oncology requires a complex understanding of cancer biology, radiation physics, and clinical care. This paper equips the medical student to understand the fundamentals of radiation oncology, first with an introduction to cancer treatment and the use of radiation therapy. Considerations during radiation oncology consultations are discussed extensively with an emphasis on how to formulate an assessment and plan including which treatment modality to use. The treatment planning aspects of radiation oncology are then discussed with a brief introduction to how radiation works, followed by a detailed explanation of the nuances of simulation, including different imaging modalities, immobilization, and accounting for motion. The medical student is then instructed on how to participate in contouring, plan generation and evaluation, and the delivery of radiation on the machine. Lastly, potential adverse effects of radiation are discussed with a particular focus on the on-treatment patient.     

Advancing the Field of Pediatric Exercise Oncology: Research and Innovation Needs

The field of pediatric exercise oncology explores the relationships between physical activity (PA), including exercise, and a range of outcomes among children and adolescents affected by cancer. Although PA is safe and beneficial for this population, several important gaps in knowledge and practice remain. In this article, we describe research and innovation needs that were developed with a team of international experts and relevant literature, a series of online surveys, and an in-person meeting. Addressing these needs will contribute valuable knowledge and practice outputs to advance this field, ultimately enabling a greater number of children and adolescents affected by cancer to realize the benefits of moving more.     

Exploratory Survey of Patients' Needs and Perceptions of Psychosocial Oncology

Cancer is a major health issue that affects a significant proportion of the population. Advancements in oncology treatment have reduced mortality, creating an ever-greater need for psychosocial oncology. Patients with cancer at Grand River Regional Cancer Centre (GRRCC) have access to some psychosocial intervention (e.g., wellness workshops, social work intervention); however, the extent to which these efforts meet patients’ current needs is not known. The purpose of the exploratory survey was to assess patients’ psychosocial needs and psychosocial oncology service needs. Patients receiving treatment for cancer at GRRCC were asked to participate in the anonymous survey. Two research assistants from the University of Guelph obtained informed consent, then with assistance from volunteers from the GRRCC, collected all data. The two screening tools, and standardized, self-report measures of depression and social support (Perceived Social Support Scale) were administered. Patients rated the psychosocial oncology services as very helpful, though 100% indicated the presence of distress. The main source of distress concerned not knowing what their personal outcomes will be. Implications for practice and research are discussed.