Weisman Michael, Bates James E, Choi J Isabelle, Mohindra Pranshu, Chowdhary Mudit, Salama Joseph, Shumway John, Hoover Andrew, Su Zhong, Sim Austin J, Shah Chirag
Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025 Sep 15. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.09.012.
An accurate accounting of the current number of practicing radiation oncologists (ROs) is critical to the complete understanding of the workforce dynamics of the field. At present, there is no clear standard on how to assess this, with multiple approaches available. Therefore, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Workforce Committee reviewed and evaluated multiple approaches in assessing the radiation oncology (RO) workforce supply, including the pros and cons of each approach, while comparing supply estimates in order to define a recommended standard for assessing the RO workforce supply in the United States. Most methods use data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Medical Association, and/or the American Association of Medical Colleges. The ASTRO-sponsored Health Management Associates Workforce Analysis and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) approach used multiple data sources, with the ASCO approach including the American Medical Association and CMS data sources. Limitations of each approach are reflective of the data sources used and include an inability to capture all physicians, a lack of routine updating, and/or a lag-time in incorporating entrants to and exits from the workforce. Overall, the assessments across methods demonstrated substantial consistency in results (range of maximum difference, 2.2%-5.0%; mean, 3.0%), with unfiltered data sets consistently reporting higher estimates, likely due to inclusion of ROs not actively practicing. For example, in 2023, filtered estimates ranged from 4935 (ASCO) to 5072 (American Association of Medical Colleges), whereas in 2024, the estimates ranged from 4992 (ASCO) to 5103 (CMS) ROs. Using the ASCO model, we estimate a total of 5100 ROs in 2024, accounting for Veterans Affairs and pediatric-only ROs, understanding this may not account for nonclinical ROs. Additionally, these methods capture "head counts" of the number of ROs, but not their clinical capacity. After reviewing the various approaches, the ASTRO Workforce Committee recommends applying a similar methodology to that in use by ASCO for RO workforce supply assessments. This would allow subsequent workforce models to be compared with a consistent methodology to prevent erroneous conclusions when comparing across methodologies.
准确统计当前执业放射肿瘤学家(RO)的数量对于全面了解该领域的劳动力动态至关重要。目前,对于如何评估这一数量尚无明确标准,存在多种方法。因此,美国放射肿瘤学会(ASTRO)劳动力委员会审查并评估了多种评估放射肿瘤学(RO)劳动力供应的方法,包括每种方法的优缺点,同时比较供应估计值,以确定美国评估RO劳动力供应的推荐标准。大多数方法使用医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)、美国医学协会和/或美国医学院协会的数据。ASTRO赞助的健康管理协会劳动力分析以及美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)的方法使用了多个数据源,ASCO的方法包括美国医学协会和CMS的数据源。每种方法的局限性反映了所使用的数据源,包括无法涵盖所有医生、缺乏定期更新以及/或者在纳入劳动力队伍的新进入者和退出者方面存在延迟。总体而言,各种方法的评估结果显示出相当高的一致性(最大差异范围为2.2%-5.0%;平均值为3.0%),未过滤的数据集始终报告较高的估计值,这可能是由于纳入了未积极执业的RO。例如,2023年,过滤后的估计值范围从4935(ASCO)到5072(美国医学院协会),而2024年,估计值范围从4992(ASCO)到5103(CMS)名RO。使用ASCO模型,我们估计2024年共有5100名RO,其中包括退伍军人事务部和仅从事儿科工作的RO,但要明白这可能未涵盖非临床RO。此外,这些方法统计的是RO的“人数”,而非他们的临床能力。在审查了各种方法后,ASTRO劳动力委员会建议采用与ASCO用于RO劳动力供应评估的方法类似的方法。这将使后续的劳动力模型能够用一致的方法进行比较,以防止在跨方法比较时得出错误结论。