PURPOSE: Virtual radiation oncology (RO) residency interviews may impair applicant and program evaluation. Second look events (SLEs) exist; however, the frequency, nature, and implications are unknown. We surveyed applicants and program directors (PDs) to characterize the 2023 RO Match SLEs and assess perspectives. METHOD AND MATERIALS: An online, anonymous survey was distributed to 2023 RO Match applicants and American College of Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO PDs post-Match. Number and percentage are reported as response per question. Likert-type scores (1, strongly agree; 5, strongly disagree) are reported as median, IQR. RESULTS: Responses were received from 51 of 246 applicants (21%) and 52 of 88 PDs (59%). Forty applicants (87%) were offered in-person and virtual SLEs; 20 (51%) and 17 (44%) applicants were invited to 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 events, respectively. Most invited applicants attended none (21, 54%). Applicants reported that all (21, 54%) or some (16, 41%) programs communicated intentions to finalize rank order lists (ROLs) before SLEs. Most applicants (29, 74%) agreed that SLEs were optional without ROL consequences (median, 2, IQR 1-3). Applicants declined in-person SLEs due to city/facility indifference (10, 43%), finances (10, 43%), and logistics (9, 39%). Most (12, 86%) in-person SLE attendees agreed that SLEs influenced their ROL (median, 2, IQR 1-2). Nineteen PDs (40%) reported offering SLEs, with 18 of 19 being in-person. PDs who did not offer SLEs cited ethical concerns (13, 45%) and institutional policies (11, 38%). All PDs reported that SLEs were optional, and 18 of 19 explained that the SLE would be without ROL consequences. SLEs mostly occurred in February before (11, 58%) and after (15, 79%) ROL submission. CONCLUSIONS: In-person SLEs occurred during Match 2023. All PDs considered SLEs optional which was trusted by most applicants. Attendance at in-person SLEs influenced applicants ROLs; however, finances and logistics impaired applicant attendance. Further work is needed to appreciate SLE implications and ensure equitable residency recruitment.

Background

Young adults and other working-age adults with cancer are at risk for cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), including material hardships, depletion of coping resources, and psychological burden. This study compares FT domains in young adults (18-39 years old) (YAs), other working-age adults (40-64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) receiving cancer care.

Methods

A total of 311 adults were surveyed using the multi-domain Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer instrument measuring FT (0-10 score indicating least to greatest FT; score ≥5 severe FT). Participants were receiving ambulatory care from March-September 2019. Associations of age with overall FT and material hardship, coping resource depletion, and psychological burden FT domains were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and χ² tests and multivariable generalized linear models with gamma distribution.

Results

YAs (median age, 31.5 years) comprised 9.6% of the sample; other working-age adults comprised 56.9%. Overall, material, coping, and psychological FT scores were worse in younger age adults versus older adults (P < .001 in all multivariable models). Compared with older adults, younger age adults demonstrated worse material hardship (median scores, 3.70 vs 4.80 vs 1.30 for YAs, other working-age, and older adults, respectively; P < .001), coping resource depletion (4.50 vs 3.40 vs 0.80; P < .001), and psychological burden (6.50 vs 7.00 vs 1.00; P < .001). Fifty percent of YAs had severe overall FT versus 40.7% of other working-age adults and 9.6% of older adults (P < .001).

Conclusions

Younger age adults with cancer bore disproportionate FT. Interventions to address unmet needs are critical components for addressing FT in this population.