skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize the practice type and location of radiation oncology (RO) residents graduating in 2013. Methods and Materials: Graduates completing RO residency in 2013 were identified, and for each, postgraduate practice setting (academic vs private practice) and location were identified. Characteristics of the graduates, including details regarding their institutions of medical school and residency education, were collected and analyzed. Results: Data were obtained from 146 of the 154 RO graduates from the class of 2013. Employment data were available for 142 graduates. Approximately one-third of graduates were employed in the same state as residency (36.6%), approximately two-thirds (62.0%) in the same region as residency, and nearly three-fourths (73.9%) in the same region as medical school or residency completion. Of the 66 graduates (46.5%) working in academics, 40.9% were at the same institution where they completed residency. Most trainees (82.4%) attended medical schools with RO residency programs. Conclusions: Although personal factors may attract students to train in a particular area, the location of medical school and residency experiences may influence RO graduate practice location choice. Trends in the geographic distribution of graduating radiation oncologists can help identify and better understand disparities in access to RO care. Steps to improve access tomore » RO care may include interventions at the medical student or resident level, such as targeting students at medical schools without associated residency programs and greater resident exposure to underserved areas.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [5];  [8];  [9]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  3. New York University, New York, New York (United States)
  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California (United States)
  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States)
  6. Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida (United States)
  7. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (United States)
  8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (United States)
  9. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648715
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 95; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES; EMPLOYMENT; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Ahmed, Awad A., Holliday, Emma B., Ileto, Jan, Yoo, Stella K., Green, Michael, Orman, Amber, Deville, Curtiland, Jagsi, Reshma, Haffty, Bruce G., and Wilson, Lynn D., E-mail: Lynn.wilson@yale.edu. Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.002.
Ahmed, Awad A., Holliday, Emma B., Ileto, Jan, Yoo, Stella K., Green, Michael, Orman, Amber, Deville, Curtiland, Jagsi, Reshma, Haffty, Bruce G., & Wilson, Lynn D., E-mail: Lynn.wilson@yale.edu. Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.002.
Ahmed, Awad A., Holliday, Emma B., Ileto, Jan, Yoo, Stella K., Green, Michael, Orman, Amber, Deville, Curtiland, Jagsi, Reshma, Haffty, Bruce G., and Wilson, Lynn D., E-mail: Lynn.wilson@yale.edu. Fri . "Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.002.
@article{osti_22648715,
title = {Close to Home: Employment Outcomes for Recent Radiation Oncology Graduates},
author = {Ahmed, Awad A. and Holliday, Emma B. and Ileto, Jan and Yoo, Stella K. and Green, Michael and Orman, Amber and Deville, Curtiland and Jagsi, Reshma and Haffty, Bruce G. and Wilson, Lynn D., E-mail: Lynn.wilson@yale.edu},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To characterize the practice type and location of radiation oncology (RO) residents graduating in 2013. Methods and Materials: Graduates completing RO residency in 2013 were identified, and for each, postgraduate practice setting (academic vs private practice) and location were identified. Characteristics of the graduates, including details regarding their institutions of medical school and residency education, were collected and analyzed. Results: Data were obtained from 146 of the 154 RO graduates from the class of 2013. Employment data were available for 142 graduates. Approximately one-third of graduates were employed in the same state as residency (36.6%), approximately two-thirds (62.0%) in the same region as residency, and nearly three-fourths (73.9%) in the same region as medical school or residency completion. Of the 66 graduates (46.5%) working in academics, 40.9% were at the same institution where they completed residency. Most trainees (82.4%) attended medical schools with RO residency programs. Conclusions: Although personal factors may attract students to train in a particular area, the location of medical school and residency experiences may influence RO graduate practice location choice. Trends in the geographic distribution of graduating radiation oncologists can help identify and better understand disparities in access to RO care. Steps to improve access to RO care may include interventions at the medical student or resident level, such as targeting students at medical schools without associated residency programs and greater resident exposure to underserved areas.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.02.002},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 3,
volume = 95,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: To determine the employment status and location of recent Canadian radiation oncology (RO) graduates and to identify current workforce entry trends. Methods and Materials: A fill-in-the-blank spreadsheet was distributed to all RO program directors in December 2013 and June 2014, requesting the employment status and location of their graduates over the last 3 years. Visa trainee graduates were excluded. Results: Response rate from program directors was 100% for both survey administrations. Of 101 graduates identified, 99 (98%) had known employment status and location. In the December survey, 5 2013 graduates (16%), 17 2012 graduates (59%), and 18 2011 graduates (75%) hadmore » permanent staff employment. Six months later, 5 2014 graduates (29%), 15 2013 graduates (48%), 24 2012 graduates (83%), and 21 2011 graduates (88%) had secured staff positions. Fellowships and temporary locums were common for those without staff employment. The proportion of graduates with staff positions abroad increased from 22% to 26% 6 months later. Conclusions: Workforce entry for most RO graduates was delayed but showed steady improvement with longer time after graduation. High emigration rates for jobs abroad signify domestic employment challenges for newly certified, Canadian-trained radiation oncologists. Coordination on a national level is required to address and regulate radiation oncologist supply and demand disequilibrium in Canada.« less
  • Purpose: This is the first National Resident Matching Program analysis evaluating historical patterns of international medical graduates (IMGs) in radiation oncology (RO) and providing comparison with American (MD) medical graduates (AMGs), osteopathic students (DOs), unfilled positions, and other specialties. Methods and Materials: National Resident Matching Program data for IMGs were available from 2003 to 2015, with limited data for other specialty matches. The following RO-specific figures were obtained per year: total positions available; total matched positions; number of unfilled positions; and number of IMG, AMG, and DO matches. In addition, the number of IMG matches and total matched positions weremore » obtained for 19 other specialties. Fisher exact tests and χ{sup 2} tests were considered significant at α <.05. Results: From 2010 to 2015, 0.8% of RO matches were IMGs, a decline from 2.4% in 2003 to 2009 (P=.006). Proportions of DO matches during these intervals increased by 40% (from 1.0% to 1.4%), significantly lower than IMGs for 2003 to 2009 (P=.03) but not 2010 to 2015 (P=.26). From 2003 to 2015, the percentage of IMG matches, at 1.5%, was significantly lower than the percentage of unfilled seats, at 3.5% (P<.001). In comparison with other specialties (2003-2015), RO had the fewest IMG matches (1.5%), followed by otolaryngology (1.9%) and orthopedics (2.2%); specialties with the highest IMG proportions were internal medicine (37.1%), family medicine (35.7%), and neurology (31.1%). Conclusions: Presently, IMGs represent <1% of RO matches, the lowest among major specialties. There are several speculative factors associated with this low proportion. There are significantly more unfilled positions than those filled by IMGs; programs at risk of not matching could weigh the advantages and disadvantages of interviewing IMGs.« less
  • No abstract prepared.
  • Purpose: To determine whether overall treatment time affects outcomes after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Methods and Materials: Data were analyzed from 3 prospective Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials (RTOG 91-06, 92-04, and 94-10) in which immediate concurrent chemoradiation (cisplatin-based) was the primary therapy for good-performance status Stage III (and selected inoperable Stage II) NSCLC. 'Short' overall treatment time (per protocol) was defined as completing treatment within 5 days of plan; other patients were considered to have had 'prolonged' treatment time (protocol violation); treatment time was also analyzed as a continuous variable in a multivariatemore » model. Actuarial analysis was performed for overall survival, progression-free survival, freedom from local-regional progression, and toxicity. Results: A total of 474 patients were analyzed. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 6.1 years. Treatment time was delivered per protocol in 387 (82%), whereas 87 patients (18%) had a prolonged treatment time. Long treatment time was significantly associated with severe acute esophagitis. Median survival was slightly better in patients completing treatment on time (19.5 months vs. 14.8 months), but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.15) in the univariate analysis. However, in the multivariate analysis of treatment time as a continuous variable, prolonged treatment time was significantly associated with poorer survival (p = 0.02), indicating a 2% increase in the risk of death for each day of prolongation in therapy. Histology (squamous fared worse) and performance status were also significant in the multivariate model. Conclusions: This retrospective analysis demonstrates a correlation between prolonged overall radiotherapy treatment time and survival in patients with locally advanced NSCLC, even when concurrent chemotherapy is used. Further study of novel radiation-chemotherapy dose/fractionation regimens is warranted.« less
  • Purpose: To assess ultrahigh (UH; prostate-specific antigen [PSA]levels {>=}50 ng/ml) patient outcomes by comparison to other high-risk patient outcomes and to identify outcome predictors. Methods and Materials: Prostate cancer patients (PCP) from two Phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials (studies 9202 and 9413) were divided into two groups: high-risk patients with and without UH baseline PSA levels. Predictive variables included age, Gleason score, clinical T stage, Karnofsky performance score, and treatment arm. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and biochemical failure (BF). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using either the Cox or Finemore » and Gray's regression model with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p values. Results: There were 401 patients in the UH PSA group and 1,792 patients in the non-UH PSA PCP group of a total of 2,193 high-risk PCP. PCP with UH PSA were found to have inferior OS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.39, p = 0.02), DM (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92; p = 0.0006), and BF (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.73; p < 0.0001) compared to other high-risk PCP. In the UH cohort, PSA level was found to be a significant factor for the risk of DM (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.001-1.02) but not OS and BF. Gleason grades of 8 to 10 were found to consistently predict for poor OS, DM, and BF outcomes (with HR estimates ranging from 1.41-2.36) in both the high-risk cohort and the UH cohort multivariable analyses. Conclusions: UH PSA levels at diagnosis are related to detrimental changes in OS, DM, and BF. All three outcomes can be modeled by various combinations of all predictive variables tested.« less