3556 - Impact of Resident-Lead Didactics on Referring Trainee Radiotherapy Knowledge and Consultation Comfort

K. Ragland, and S. Marcrom; University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Radiation Oncology, Birmingham, AL

Purpose/Objective(s): Radiotherapy (RT) is a crucial treatment component and indicated in the majority of cancer patients, although utilization is lacking. A recognized, but elusive factor is RT familiarity of referring physicians. While most physicians will care for cancer patients who have received or have an indication for RT, the majority have no formal RT education- by rotation or didactics. This gap continues through training and independent practice, resulting in less multidisciplinary care, RT underutilization and worse patient outcomes. There is limited published guidance on methods to improve referring physician RT. We aimed to locally evaluate this interdisciplinary deficiency and assess the impact of a didactic session for trainees. Materials/

Methods: A Radiation Oncology (RO) overview lecture was created with pre- and post-lecture surveys. Over 7 sessions, the lecture and surveys were presented by a RO resident to trainees in Family Practice, Internal Medicine and Palliative Care programs within the city. Descriptive statistics were performed using the Chi Square test (SPSS version 29.0.2.0).
Results: 41 trainees responded to the pre- and 23 to the post-lecture survey. Of responders, 54% had no prior education or interaction with RO although they routinely care for cancer patients. Initially, 32% believed that RT causes a burning sensation during treatment. When inquired on a 1-4 Likert scale (not comfortable to very comfortable), the pre- and post-surveys show a significant increase in the amount of trainees comfortable (response of 3 or 4) in consulting RO in an oncologic emergency (from 17 to 70%), in consulting RO for a new cancer diagnosis (22 to 74%) and in explaining the RT experience to a patient (5 to 68%). There was also a significant improvement in knowledge of palliative RT indications (Table 1). All reported they were likely to reach out to RO for advice in the future, 86% would likely refer to RO directly from their future practice and 95% would benefit from continuing RT education.
Conclusion: Physicians’ lack of basic RT knowledge is incongruent with cancer prevalence, limiting timely treatment and patient outcomes. Without established requirements for non-RO specialties for RT education, trainees have limited exposure and may harbor bias against RT, built from common misconceptions. Based on participant feedback, referring specialty trainees have interest in didactics and RT continuing education. This study demonstrates that a single, short lecture developed and presented by a RO resident improved physician knowledge of RT applications and accessibility.

Abstract 3556 – Table 1: Percent of responses that correctly identify RT as a potential palliative therapy

	Vaginal Bleeding	Bone Metastases	Spinal Cord Compression	Airway Obstruction	Hemoptysis	Pain	Brain Metastases
Pre (%)	23	58	48	43	23	38	68
Post (%)	91	96	86	77	86	91	96
P-value	<0.001	0.007	0.011	0.022	<0.001	<0.001	0.024