Juntendo University Faculty of Medicine Urayasushi, Chibaken
A. I. Saito1, L. Mula-Hussain2,3, G. N. Marta4, D. A. Martinez5, M. I. Cotes Mestre6, and M. E. Chirila7,8; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Juntendo University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, 2Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3College of Medicine - Ninevah University, Mosul, Iraq, 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 5Rayos Contra Cancer, Nashville, TN, 6National Institute of Cancer, Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia, 7RTC Amethyst Cluj, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 8Department of Clinical Development, MVision AI, Helsinki, Finland
Purpose/Objective(s): Global landscape of radiation oncology (RO) practices and educational frameworks exhibits intriguing variations across continents, yet a comprehensive understanding of these distinctions remains elusive. Aim of this study was to investigate the diverse working styles and educational paradigms among Radiation oncologists (ROs) worldwide. Materials/
Methods: Comprehensive international survey, targeting ROs worldwide was conducted. It reached out to 137 ROs across 86 countries spanning Africa, North-South America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. To qualify for the survey, participants needed to be practicing ROs within academic settings. This survey, which collected responses from 2020 to 2023, included a set of 18 questions, which were designed to gather insights into various aspects of RO profession of their respective countries, including educational background and work practices. Key topics addressed in the survey encompassed: (a) perceived adequacy of RO workforce numbers, (b) overall popularity of the RO field, (c) gender distribution within the profession, specifically the proportion of female ROs, and (d) availability of residency positions in the field of RO. Results: Responses from 103 ROs representing 71 countries were received. Geographical distribution of respondents was Africa (10), Asia (29), Europe (37), North America (1 from Canada), South America (24), and Oceania (2, both from Australia). Key findings: (a) Concerning the sufficiency of ROs; A majority of respondents from Europe (57%), Asia (62%), and Africa (75%) felt there were insufficient ROs, while data from North America and Oceania was not indicative of a trend due to low response rates. A notable exception was Mongolia, where one respondent indicated an adequate number of ROs, attributing this to the existence of a single cancer center in the country. (b) Popularity of the RO field; over half of the respondents from each continent felt that the field was not widely recognized, with the highest perception of popularity in Africa (63% responded negatively) and a combined 74% negative response rate from other continents. (c) Proportion of female Ros; This was comparatively higher in Europe and North America, with median rates of 60% and 63%, respectively, while the median rate across other continents hovered around 45%. (d) Residency positions; Seven respondents indicated the absence of official training programs in their regions or reported zero available positions—four from Asia and three from South America. Conclusion: The results reveal a widespread deficiency of ROs in most countries and, in some, a lack of education programs. The low popularity of RO, as pointed out by most participants, is a shared concern While similarities were observed within continents, significant differences were also noted, which were not solely attributable to the economic conditions of the respective countries, suggesting other complex factors to play in influencing the availability and recognition of RO services globally.
