return

 During the past few years, efforts have been underway in the United States to reach a national consensus as to what the radiation biology curriculum should be for radiation oncology residents. The impetus for these activities is both the perceived manpower shortage, that is, that many classically-trained radiation biologists who do the bulk of the resident teaching are at or near retirement age, and are being replaced by non-radiation biologists; and also, efforts to revise or update radiobiology curricula to better integrate new molecular and cancer biology concepts.

Two different national committees have spearheaded these efforts: the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology’s (ASTRO) Joint Working Group on Radiobiology Teaching (chaired by Dr. Mark Dewhirst, Duke University School of Medicine); and the Radiation Research Society’s (RRS) Education and Training Committee (chaired by Drs. Joseph Dynlacht and Elaine Zeman, Indiana University and University of North Carolina Schools of Medicine, respectively). Both of these committees are involved with addressing issues of manpower and instructor educational background, curriculum standardization, and instructor satisfaction with feedback received with respect to both curriculum planning and resident performance on standardized radiation biology examinations. The ASTRO Joint Working Group is unique insofar as it is composed of members having affiliations with several national radiation oncology and biology-related societies, and representation by the various committees charged with resident education, and physician training and training program certification.

To date, both the ASTRO and RRS committees have independently sponsored two symposia (one at the 2000 ASTRO Annual Meeting and one at 2001 RRS Annual Meeting), two refresher courses on "classical radiation biology" for non-radiobiologists (at the 2002 RRS Annual Meeting), commissioned a large, ASTRO-sponsored national survey of radiation biology educators, and published two papers (Dynlacht et al, Radiat. Res. 157: 599-606, 2002; and Zeman et al, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., in press, expected November, 2002).

These informational and educational sessions were partially in response to some of the salient findings of the national survey of radiation biology educators, including:

1. A decreasing supply of instructors qualified to teach classical radiobiology, particularly its clinical aspects, to radiation oncology residents. As of the time of the survey, approximately 40% of all instructors charged with teaching radiobiology did not hold a degree in a radiation science; this percentage is only expected to increase as more classically-trained radiation biologists retire. In addition, in approximately half of the training programs, the sole responsibility for teaching falls to a single faculty member. This may serve to exacerbate the manpower problem even further.

2. A sizeable "disconnect" between the physician education and certification, and training program accreditation committees (primarily medical organizations), and the actual educators themselves (who are much more likely to be members of research organizations than medical ones). This has implications for the feedback, or lack thereof that educators receive with respect to both teaching curricula and resident performance on standardized exams.

3. A large variability between US training programs in terms of the total number of contact hours per complete radiobiology course, ranging from as few as approximately 10 hours, to over 50 hours. In addition, a number of lecture topics, particularly in the clinical aspects of radiobiology, are underrepresented nationally.

Plans for the future include trying to foster a closer relationship between the credentialing and accrediting organizations, and the radiobiology instructors themselves, that would include developing a more detailed core curriculum for radiation and cancer biology education that would be accessible to all (various Internet-based initiatives are currently under consideration), achieving an appropriate balance between classical and clinical radiobiology versus cancer and molecular biology, and possibly, recommending a minimum number of contact hours per course.

The RRS Education and Training Committee also hopes to continue to offer refresher courses in radiobiology at its annual meetings for the benefit of more junior members who are less well-versed in this area, yet may find themselves in the role of de facto radiobiology instructors for radiation oncology residents.

For further information

Elaine M. Zeman, Ph.D.
Department of Radiation Oncology
UNC School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, NC, U.S.A.
Email: zeman@radonc.unc.edu