Vengaloor Thomas Toms, Perekattu Kuruvilla Teessa, Kahn Jenna, Bhanat Eldrin, Parr Amy Q, Albert Ashley, Chowdhary Mudit, Beriwal Sushil, Vijayakumar Srinivasan
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi.
Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland, Oregon.
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Aug 11;6(1):100544. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.08.001. eCollection 2021 Jan-Feb.
The purpose of this research was to assess the existing variations in the residency training resources among radiation oncology (RO) residency programs in the United States. We queried each residency program website and Fellowship Residency Electronic Interactive Data Access System website (www.freida.ama-assn.org) to obtain information on faculty and available treatment modalities. The data were continuously updated, most recently as of April 30, 2019. A total of 94 RO residency programs were identified during the academic year 2018-2019, and data were collected. The median number of attending physicians was 13 (range, 4 -71). The median number of physicists and biologists were 9 and 3, respectively. The conventional techniques, including 3 dimensional conformal radation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, electron therapy, and stereotactic body radiation therap/stereotactic radiosurgery, were available in all residency programs. In terms of specialized external beam radiation therapy machines, gamma knife, CyberKnife, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) linear accelerator were available in 49 (52%), 21(22%), and 7 (8%) programs, respectively. Only 19 programs (20%) had in-house proton therapy availability; however, 37 programs (39%) offered proton therapy training via resident rotation at an affiliated institution. Prostate, gynecologic, and breast brachytherapy were available in 81 (86%), 82 (87%), and 58 (62%) programs, respectively. Eighty-one (86%) programs reported to have high dose rate, and only 20 (21%) programs had low dose rate brachytherapy. Our study found that marked variations exist among RO residency programs in the United States during academic year 2018-2019 and will serve as a baseline for future intervention.
本研究的目的是评估美国放射肿瘤学（RO）住院医师培训项目中住院医师培训资源的现有差异。我们查询了每个住院医师培训项目网站以及住院医师/专科医师电子交互式数据访问系统网站（www.freida.ama-assn.org），以获取有关教员和可用治疗方式的信息。数据不断更新，最近一次更新时间为2019年4月30日。在2018 - 2019学年共确定了94个RO住院医师培训项目，并收集了数据。主治医师的中位数为13名（范围为4 - 71名）。物理学家和生物学家的中位数分别为9名和3名。所有住院医师培训项目均提供包括三维适形放射治疗、调强放射治疗、电子治疗以及立体定向体部放射治疗/立体定向放射外科在内的传统技术。在专门的外照射放疗设备方面，伽玛刀、射波刀和磁共振成像（MRI）直线加速器分别在49个（52%）、21个（22%）和7个（8%）项目中可用。只有19个项目（20%）具备内部质子治疗条件；然而，37个项目（39%）通过在附属机构的住院医师轮转提供质子治疗培训。前列腺、妇科和乳腺近距离放射治疗分别在81个（86%）、82个（87%）和58个（62%）项目中可用。81个（86%）项目报告有高剂量率近距离放射治疗，只有20个（21%）项目有低剂量率近距离放射治疗。我们的研究发现，在2018 - 2019学年期间，美国RO住院医师培训项目之间存在显著差异，这将为未来的干预提供基线数据。
