Purpose

Many medical school clerkships have structured curricula; however, most radiation oncology clerkships do not. The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) implemented a curriculum for fourth-year radiation oncology clerkships at 14 institutions. We hypothesized that students completing clerkships with the curriculum would report greater subjective knowledge and comfort to function as a radiation oncology resident compared with students completing clerkships without the curriculum.

Methods

The ROECSG curriculum included three 1-hour lectures and a 1-hour hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. Applicants to a single radiation oncology residency program in the 2014-2015 academic year were sent an anonymous, validated clerkship experience survey. Students indicated if clerkships were completed at a curriculum site. Likert-type data (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) are reported as median (interquartile range).

Results

Respondents described 276 clerkship experiences, of which 64 (23.2%) were completed at a curriculum site. Students whose first clerkship was at a curriculum site perceived greater postclerkship confidence in knowledge of radiation biology (3 [3-4] versus 2 [2-3], P < .01), treatment setup/positioning (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], P < .05), treatment planning (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], P < .01), and ability to integrate evidence-based medicine into treatment (4 [2-4] versus 3 [2-4], P < .05). Students who completed any clerkship with the curriculum had greater postclerkship confidence to function as a radiation oncology resident (3 [3-4] versus 3 [2-3], P < .05).

Conclusions

These results support the curriculum's ability to increase student knowledge in radiation oncology, especially in the students' first clerkship. Further, these findings suggest that expanded implementation of such curricula may ensure a rewarding educational experience during radiation oncology clerkships.

Delivering a cohesive oncology curriculum to medical students is challenging due to oncology's multidisciplinary nature, predominantly outpatient clinical setting, and lack of data describing effective approaches to teaching it. We sought to better characterize approaches to oncology education at US medical schools by surveying third and fourth year medical students who serve on their institution's curriculum committee. We received responses from students at 19 schools (15.2% response rate). Key findings included the following: (1) an under-emphasis of cancer in the curriculum relative to other common diseases; (2) imbalanced involvement of different clinical subspecialists as educators; (3) infrequent requirements for students to rotate through non-surgical oncologic clerkships; and (4) students are less confident in their knowledge of cancer treatment compared to basic science/natural history or workup/diagnosis. Based on these findings, we provide several recommendations to achieve robust multidisciplinary curriculum design and implementation that better balances the clinical and classroom aspects of oncology education.