What Are Medical Students in the United States Learning About Radiation Oncology? Results of a Multi-Institutional Survey.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings. METHODS: We developed and beta tested an electronic survey divided into 3 parts: RO job descriptions, appropriateness of RT, and toxicities of RT. The surveys were distributed to 7 medical schools in the United States. A concordance of >90% (either yes or no) among RO attendings in an answer was necessary to determine the correct answer and to compare with other subgroups using a χ(2) test (P<.05 was significant). RESULTS: The overall response rate for ROs, MS1s, MS4s, and PCPs was 26%; n (22 + 315 + 404 + 43)/3004. RT misconceptions decreased with increasing level of training. More than 1 of 10 MSs did not believe that RT alone could cure cancer. Emergent oncologic conditions for RT (eg, spinal cord compression, superior vena cava syndrome) could not be identified by >1 of 5 respondents. Multiple nontoxicities of RT (eg, emitting low-level radiation from the treatment site) were incorrectly identified as toxicities by >1 of 5 respondents. MS4s/PCPs with an RO rotation in medical school had improved scores in all prompts. CONCLUSIONS: Although MS knowledge of general RT principles improves from the first to the fourth year, a large knowledge gap still exists between MSs, current PCPs, and ROs. Some basic misconceptions of RT persist among a minority of MSs and PCPs. We recommend implementing formal education in RO fundamentals during the core curriculum of medical school.

Large prostate gland size is not a contraindication to low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Prostate volume greater than 50cc is traditionally a relative contraindication to prostate seed implantation (PSI), but there is little consensus regarding prostate size and clinical outcomes. We report biochemical control and toxicity after low-dose-rate PSI and compare outcomes according to the prostate size. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 429 men who underwent low-dose-rate PSI between 1998 and 2009 were evaluated. Median followup was 38.7 months. Patients were classified by prostate volume into small, medium, and large subgroups. Differences were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Pearson's χ(2) tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate effect of prostate size on outcomes. RESULTS: Patient pretreatment factors were balanced between groups except for age (p=0.001). The 10-year actuarial freedom from biochemical failure for all patients treated with PSI was 96.3% with no statistically significant difference between large vs. small/medium prostate size (90% vs. 96.6%, p=0.47). In a multivariate analysis, plan type (hazard ratio [HR]=0.25, p=0.03), dose to 90% of the gland (D90: HR=0.98, p=0.02), volume receiving 200Gy (V200: HR=0.98, p=0.026), and biologic effective dose (HR=0.99, p=0.045), but not prostate size (HR=2.27, p=0.17) were significantly associated with freedom from biochemical failure. Prostate size was not significantly associated with time to maximum American Urologic Association score. CONCLUSION: In men with large prostates, the PSI provides biochemical control and temporal changes in genitourinary toxicity that are comparable with men having smaller glands. Accurate dose optimization and delivery of PSI provides the best clinical outcomes regardless of gland size.

Re-implantation of suboptimal prostate seed implantation: technique with intraoperative treatment planning.

PURPOSE: Post-implant dosimetry following prostate seed implantation (PSI) occasionally reveals suboptimal dosimetric coverage of the gland. Published reports of re-implantation techniques have focused on earlier-generation techniques, including preplanned approaches and stranded seeds. The purpose of this case report is to describe a customizable approach to perform corrective re-implantation using loose seeds and intraoperative planning technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This case report describes a 63-year-old male with favorable risk prostate adenocarcinoma receiving PSI. Thirty day post-implant dosimetric evaluation revealed suboptimal coverage of the base of the gland. Using guidance from post-implant CT-images and real-time planning, the patient received a corrective re-implantation with intraoperative planning. RESULTS: Post-implant dosimetry after re-implantation procedure with intraoperative planning yielded improved target volume coverage that achieved standard dosimetric criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Re-implantation as a salvage treatment technique after sub-optimal PSI is a valid treatment option performed with intraoperative real-time planning.