Radiation Oncology AcaDemic Mentorship Program (ROADMAP) for Junior Faculty: One-Year Results of a Prospective Single Institution Initiative.

PURPOSE: Although mentorship has been associated with promotion, job satisfaction, and retention, data are limited on the mentorship experience of clinical- versus research-track physicians as well as feasibility and relative priority of formal program components. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Within a single-institution, multi-site, academic network, we implemented a Radiation Oncology AcaDemic Mentorship Program (ROADMAP) for junior faculty. Validated surveys assessing mentee satisfaction were distributed at baseline and 1 year. The statistical analysis included Wilcoxon rank sum and signed tests. Mentees assessed the likelihood to recommend each program component (10-point Likert-type scale), and means with standard error (SE) are reported. RESULTS: Among 42 eligible junior faculty, 36 (86%) opted into the program. The median time since residency was 2.5 years (interquartile range, 1.75-5.25) on the clinical track (n = 12) and 3 years (interquartile range, 2.75-5.00) on the research track (n = 24). At baseline, research-track physicians reported higher satisfaction with mentoring than physicians on the clinical track (2.92 vs 2.16; P = .02). Among 32 physicians completing 1 year, overall satisfaction with mentoring increased compared with baseline (2.72 vs 3.87; P < .001), which persisted on subset analysis for both clinical- (2.16 vs 4.03; P < .001) and research-track physicians (2.99 vs 3.77; P = .005). At 1 year, 28 mentees (88%) opted to continue the program. Program components were rated 8.25 (SE, 0.37) for mentor-mentee pairings, 7.22 (SE, 0.39) for goal setting, 6.84 (SE, 0.47) for administrative support, 6.69 (SE, 0.44) for peer mentoring, and 6.53 (SE, 0.45) for steering committee oversight. Ratings of peer mentoring were not associated with track (P = .59) or years in practice (P = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical-track physicians may be less satisfied with mentorship than research-track faculty. However, all junior faculty, regardless of track, appeared to benefit from formalizing dyadic mentor-mentee relationships, goal setting, and peer mentoring. Further work is needed to determine the role of mentorship in addressing physician burnout.

Clinical Review of Proton Therapy in the Treatment of Unilateral Head and Neck Cancers.

Radiotherapy is a common treatment modality in the management of head and neck malignancies. In select clinical scenarios of well-lateralized tumors, radiotherapy can be delivered to the primary tumor or tumor bed and the ipsilateral nodal regions, while intentional irradiation of the contralateral neck is omitted. Proton beam therapy is an advanced radiotherapy modality that allows for the elimination of exit-dose through nontarget tissues such as the oral cavity. This dosimetric advantage is apt for unilateral treatments. By eliminating excess dose to midline and contralateral organs at risk and conforming dose around complex anatomy, proton beam therapy can reduce the risk of iatrogenic toxicities. Currently, there is no level I evidence comparing proton beam therapy to conventional photon radiation modalities for unilateral head and neck cancers. However, a growing body of retrospective and prospective evidence is now available describing the dosimetric and clinical advantages of proton beam therapy. Subsequently, the intent of this clinical review is to summarize the current evidence supporting the use of proton beam therapy in unilateral irradiation of head and neck cancers, including evaluation of disease site-specific evidence, unique challenging clinical scenarios, and ongoing clinical trials.

Early palliative radiation versus observation for high-risk asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic bone metastases: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic cancer, the bone is the third-most common site of involvement. Radiation to painful bone metastases results in high rates of pain control and is an integral part of bone metastases management. Up to one-third of inpatient consults are requested for painful bone metastases, and up to 60% of these patients had evidence of these lesions visible on prior imaging. Meanwhile recent advances have reduced potential side effects of radiation. Therefore, there is an opportunity to further improve outcomes for patients using prophylactic palliative radiation to manage asymptomatic bone metastases. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN: In this trial, 74 patients with metastatic solid tumors and high-risk asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic bone metastases will be enrolled and randomized to early palliative radiation or standard of care. This will be the first trial to assess the efficacy of prophylactic palliative radiation in preventing skeletal related events (SREs), the primary endpoint. This endpoint was selected to encompass patient-centered outcomes that impact quality of life including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, and intervention with surgery or radiation. Secondary endpoints include hospitalizations, Bone Pain Index, pain-free survival, pain-related quality of life, and side effects of radiation therapy. DISCUSSION: In this study, we propose a novel definition of high-risk bone metastases most likely to benefit from preventive radiation and use validated questionnaires to assess pain and impact on quality of life and health resource utilization. Observations from early patient enrollment have demonstrated robustness of the primary endpoint and need for minor modifications to Bone Pain Index and data collection for opioid use and hospitalizations. With increasing indications for radiation in the oligometastatic setting, this trial aims to improve patient-centered outcomes in the polymetastatic setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number/Clinical trials.gov, ID: NCT03523351 . Registered on 14 May 2018.