{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04108352144469526, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016252821670428894, 'mean_word_length': 5.349570200573066, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Survey of Resident Education in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been gaining increasing popularity among practicing physicians in the U.S., but the extent to which radiation oncology residents are taught the principles of this technology and are trained to use IMRT remains unknown. In this paper, we assessed the current level of resident education in IMRT in the United States. Chief residents at all 77 accredited radiation oncology programs were sent a 13-question survey addressing formal didactics and hands-on experience in IMRT. The survey assessed the frequency, subject, and format of IMRT didactics. Questions also addressed the number of IMRT patients and anatomical sites treated, resident involvement in the IMRT process, and the intent of IMRT use. Finally, residents were asked for their opinions on their IMRT education. Sixty-one surveys (79%) were completed. Overall, forty-three respondents (71%) reported receiving formal IMRT didactics, with nearly one-third reporting extensive didactics (≥ 3 lectures/seminars et cetera per year). The most common didactic formats were lectures (95%) and journal clubs (63%), most commonly supervised by physicists (98%). Involvement by physicians and radiobiologists were reported by 63% and 7% of respondents, respectively. Overall, 87% of respondents had hands-on IMRT training, with nearly one-half having treated >25 patients. The most common sites treated were head and neck (94%) and prostate (81%). Involvement in all aspects of the IMRT process was common, particularly target and tissue delineation (98%) and plan evaluation (93%). Most respondents (79%) with hands-on experience reported receiving formal didactics. However, nearly one-third received no or only minimal formal didactics. The percentage of respondents desiring increased IMRT didactics and hands-on experience were 70% and 47%, respectively. Our results suggest that the great majority of radiation oncology residents in the United States are currently exposed to didactics and hands-on training in IMRT. Areas of potential improvement include increased involvement of physicians and radiobiologists in formal IMRT didactics.