Ontario radiation oncology residents' needs in the first postgraduate year-residents' perspective survey.

PURPOSE: To assess radiation oncology residents' needs and satisfaction in their first postgraduate year (PGY-1) in the province of Ontario. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Of 62 radiation oncology residents, 58 who had completed their PGY-1 and were either enrolled or had graduated in 2006 were invited to participate in a 31-item survey. The questionnaire explored PGY-1 residents' needs and satisfaction in four domains: clinical workload, faculty/learning environment, stress level, and discrimination/harassment. The Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon nonparametric tests were used to determine relationships between covariate items and summary scores. RESULTS: Of 58 eligible residents, 44 (75%) responded. Eighty-four percent of residents felt that their ward and call duties were appropriate. More than 50% of respondents indicated that they often felt isolated from their radiation oncology program. Only 77% agreed that they received adequate feedback, and 40% received sufficient counseling regarding career planning. More than 93% of respondents thought that faculty members had contributed significantly to their learning experience. Approximately 50% of residents experienced excessive stress and inadequate time for leisure or for reading the medical literature. Less than 10% of residents indicated that they had been harassed or experienced discrimination. Eighty-three percent agreed or strongly agreed that their PGY-1 experience had been outstanding. CONCLUSIONS: Most Ontario residents were satisfied with their PGY-1 training program. More counseling by radiation oncology faculty members should be offered to help residents with career planning. The residents might also benefit from more exposure to "radiation oncology" and an introduction to stress management strategies.

The use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer: a practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review with meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the literature and to develop recommendations regarding the use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with resectable rectal cancer. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the annual proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Relevant reports were reviewed by four members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Two meta-analyses of preoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone, nineteen trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery to surgery alone, and five trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy to alternative treatments were obtained. Randomized trials demonstrate that preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery is significantly more effective than surgery alone in preventing local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer and it may also improve survival. A single trial, using surgery with total mesorectal excision, has shown similar benefits in local recurrence. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer we conclude that: Preoperative radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative to the previous practice of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with stage II and III resectable rectal cancer. Both preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy decrease local recurrence but neither improves survival as much as postoperative radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Therefore, if preoperative radiotherapy is used, chemotherapy should be added postoperatively to at least patients with stage III disease.

The treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth most common cause of adult cancer death. About 50% of patients present with metastatic disease, 20% with resectable disease and the remaining 30% of patients are diagnosed with incurable, locally advanced unresectable but nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current evidence regarding treatment of incurable, locally advanced, unresectable but nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer and produce an evidence-based practice guideline. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the following medical subject heading search terms: 'pancreatic neoplasms', 'chemotherapy, adjuvant', 'radiotherapy', 'immunotherapy', combined with the text words: 'chemotherapy', 'radiotherapy', 'radiation', 'immunotherapy', combined with terms for the following study designs or publication types: practice guidelines, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials. The Physician Data Query clinical trials database and the proceedings of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (1996 to 2001) and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (1999 to 2001) were searched for reports of new or ongoing trials. Relevant literature was selected and reviewed independently, and the reference lists from these sources were searched for additional trials. Interpretation of evidence was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Eight randomized trials were obtained that met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations are to offer combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy to suitable patients. The preferred chemotherapeutic agent to combine with radiotherapy is bolus or infusional 5-fluorouracil, but the optimal mode and duration of 5-fluorouracil delivery is unclear. Chemotherapy alone with gem-citabine is an acceptable alternative.

Improving the consistency in cervical esophageal target volume definition by special training.

PURPOSE: Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy requires the precise definition of the target volume. Its potential benefits could be offset by the inconsistency in target definition by radiation oncologists. In a previous survey of radiation oncologists, a large degree of variation in target volume definition of cervical esophageal cancer was noted for the boost phase of radiotherapy. The present study evaluated whether special training could improve the consistency in target volume definitions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A pre-training survey was performed to establish baseline values. This was followed by a special one-on-one training session on treatment planning based on the RTOG 94-05 protocol to 12 radiation oncologists. Target volumes were redrawn immediately and at 1-2 months later. Post-training vs. pre-training target volumes were compared. RESULTS: There was less variability in the longitudinal positions of the target volumes post-training compared to pre-training (p < 0.05 in 5 of 6 comparisons). One case had more variability due to the lack of a visible gross tumor on CT scans. Transverse contours of target volumes did not show any significant difference pre- or post-training. CONCLUSION: For cervical esophageal cancer, this study suggests that special training on protocol guidelines may improve consistency in target volume definition. Explicit protocol directions are required for situations where the gross tumor is not easily visible on CT scans. This may be particularly important for multicenter clinical trials, to reduce the occurrences of protocol violations.