2555 - Evaluating the Current Literature and Visibility of Anatomy Education in U.S. Radiation Oncology Residency Programs

Purpose/Objective(s): Anatomy knowledge is fundamental in radiation oncology (RO), especially for accurate contouring and treatment planning. Recent educational efforts include a 2-year gross anatomy curriculum at Duke University and a Canadian national anatomy and radiology contouring boot camp, which were associated, respectively, with improved satisfaction and contouring competencies among RO residents, underscoring the value of structured anatomy education. Despite its beneficial role, many residency programs appear to lack formalized anatomy curricula. This study hypothesizes that anatomy and radiology education may be less explicitly emphasized in publicly available curriculum descriptions compared to other core subjects like radiation biology and physics. This study explores how U.S. RO residency programs advertise their educational offerings, particularly focusing on anatomy and radiology in relation to other core subjects such as radiation biology and physics.

Materials/Methods: To assess the current literature on anatomy education, we conducted a PubMed MeSH search using anatomy, curriculum, or physiology/education with radiation oncology, brachytherapy, or neoplasms/radiotherapy/education. We then systematically reviewed publicly available websites for all 91 ACGME-accredited U.S. radiation oncology residency programs, documenting curriculum availability and the inclusion of anatomy, radiology, radiation biology, and radiation physics coursework.

Results: The pubmed MeSH search returned 315 articles, of which only 16 articles were applicable to the topic of this study. Of these, only 3 were primarily focused on anatomy education in RO. Out of 90 programs, 70 (77%) provided curriculum outlines online. Within these 70 programs, only 15 (21%) mentioned specific anatomy coursework, while 27 (39%) included radiology coursework. In stark contrast, nearly all programs highlighted radiation biology (69/70, 99%) and radiation physics (70/70, 100%). Anatomy education was the least consistently emphasized compared to other essential subjects within RO training.

Conclusion: Our review highlights significant variability in anatomy education across radiation oncology programs and a relative lack of published literature on the topic. The limited emphasis on dedicated anatomy curricula—despite its importance in clinical practice—suggests educational inconsistencies that may affect resident competency in contouring and treatment planning. Addressing these gaps through curriculum development and standardization could enhance training and improve patient care. A key limitation of this study is its reliance on publicly available information, which may not fully reflect program curricula. Future directions for this research include developing a multi-institutional resident survey to assess anatomy training, self-perceived competencies, and educational satisfaction, to provide a clearer picture of current needs and areas for improvement.