2602 - The Impact of a Multidisciplinary Oncology Panel on Medical Student Perceptions of Radiation Oncology

Purpose/Objective(s): Medical students have limited exposure to radiation oncology (RO) during their education, which may contribute to misperceptions about the specialty. Previously, we presented results of a survey conducted among medical student members of ASCO sponsored oncology interest groups in the United States. Relative to medical oncology (MO) and surgical oncology (SO), students expressed they received less exposure to RO during pre-clinical training, decreased understanding of the role of RO in multidisciplinary cancer care, and greater pessimism about the future of the specialty. We hypothesized that a structured panel discussion would enhance students’ knowledge and positively influence their perceptions of RO as a career choice.

Materials/Methods: At a single allopathic medical school, we held a one-hour panel discussion featuring three oncologists representing distinct specialties: MO, SO, and RO. Each specialist discussed their career path, role in patient care, and perspectives on oncology practices. A 14-item electronic questionnaire was administered via SurveyMonkey to student participants at the beginning and at the end of the session. Participation was voluntary and responses anonymous. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test to compare categorical variables.

Results: Twenty-six students completed the survey. All students were in their M1 (65%) or M2 years (35%); 58% identified as male and 42% female. Pre and post survey results demonstrated significant changes in student perceptions of RO. The percentage of students who strongly agreed that they understood the role of RO in the care of cancer patients increased from 23.1% pre-panel to 80.8% post-panel (p < 0.001). Students were more likely to express strong agreement with the following statements after the intervention: RO allows for reasonable work-life balance (30.8% vs. 53.8%, p < 0.05), RO providers have opportunities to engage in meaningful patient provider interactions (42.3% vs. 76.9%, p < 0.01), RO physicians provide longitudinal care (38.5% vs. 73.1%, p < 0.05), future job prospects in RO are strong (57.7% vs. 88.5%, p < 0.05). Students were also more likely to express strong agreement with statements that research opportunities are abundant (61.5% vs 84.6%), and they would enjoy working in the specialty (7.7% vs 30.8%), though these did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion: Participation in a multidisciplinary oncology panel improved medical students' understanding of RO and its role in patient care. The intervention also positively influenced perceptions of work-life balance, patient interactions, longitudinal care, career prospects, and research opportunities in RO. These findings suggest that incorporating similar educational initiatives into medical school curriculum may increase awareness and interest in RO as a career choice. Further studies could explore the long-term impact of such interventions on career decision-making.