Volume 90 � Number 1S � Supplement 2014 Poster Viewing Abstracts S601

2991Mentorship of Radiation Oncology Residents: An Unmet NeedG. Dhami,1 W. Gao,1 M.F. Gensheimer,2 A.D. Trister,3 G.M. Kane,1

and J. Zeng1; 1University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2University of

Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, 3University of Washington

Affiliated Hospitals, Seattle, WA

Purpose/Objective(s): Mentorship has been shown to increase research

productivity and career satisfaction, and plays an integral role in resident

training. However, prevalence of mentorship in radiation oncology resi-

dency programs is unknown. We conducted a nationwide survey of resi-

dents to evaluate the current status of mentorship.

Materials/Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all radiation

oncology residents/recent graduates at ACGME-accredited residency

programs, identified in the ARRO Member Directory. Questions assessed

demographics, prevalence of formal mentorship program, and opinions

about the value of mentorship. Responses were scored on a 5-point ordinal

Likert scale. Factors predictive of having a mentor and satisfaction with

the mentorship experience were identified. Univariate and multivariate

analyses (MVA) were performed.

Results: Out of 596 residents/recent graduates, 150 (25%) completed the

survey. 60% were male and 40% were female. 85% of respondents agreed

that mentorship plays a critical role in residency training, but only 53%

identified having a current mentor. Only 21% of programs had a formal

mentorship program, and 88% of these residents had a mentor. Conversely,

44% of residents without a formal mentorship program had a mentor

(p<0.001). Overall, 75% of residents wished that their residency had a

formal mentorship program. Programs with �10 faculty (p Z 0.004) and

�10 residents (p<0.001) were associated with having a formal mentorship

program. Having a formal mentorship program was highly associated with

being satisfied with the mentorship experience (univariate OR 8.77,

p<0.001, MVA OR 5, p<0.001). On MVA, females were less likely to be

satisfied with the mentorship experience. Residents with mentors were

more likely to have a mentee (OR 3.23, p Z 0.01). Junior faculty was the

most common category among mentors (30%). The most common reasons

for not developing a mentorship relationship were clinical workload (60%)

and lack of available mentors (59%).

Conclusions: There is an unmet need for mentorship in radiation oncology

residency programs. Despite overwhelmingly agreeing that mentorship

plays a critical role in training, only half of residents surveyed had a

mentor. Formal mentorship programs may facilitate mentorship relation-

ships, and increase resident satisfaction with the experience. Having

mentors can encourage and enable residents to be mentors themselves, and

this role can be reprised as residents become junior faculty. However,

formal mentorship programs are more common in larger programs, which

may indicate a barrier to widespread adoption. This barrier is a high impact

area to address. Furthermore, women were less likely to be satisfied with

the mentorship experience, and this is an area for further study. We must

encourage building and sustaining the culture of mentorship as it is

essential in multiple factors in training.

Author Disclosure: G. Dhami: None. W. Gao: None. M.F. Gensheimer:

None. A.D. Trister: None. G.M. Kane: None. J. Zeng: None.

2992Improving the Quality of Radiation Oncology Education Through anInnovative Medical Student Treatment Planning CurriculumN.G. Thaker,1 R. Komaki,1 D.W. Golden,2 N.S. Boehling,3 J.R. Gunther,1

E. Hillebrandt,1 A. Mahajan,1 J.D. Cox,1 S.J. Frank,1 W.A. Woodward,1

and P. Das1; 1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,

TX, 2University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, IL, 3University of Texas

MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation oncology (RO)-specific educational

curricula for medical students (MSs) remain underdeveloped, despite

increasing undergraduate interest. MSs, therefore, have limited exposure

during rotations to basic principles of radiation treatment planning and

target delineation (TPD). Our objective was to develop and implement an

innovative, hands-on TPD session for MSs to improve the quality of RO

education.

Materials/Methods: Rotating MSs were enrolled in a multi-institutional

pilot curriculum consisting of three one-hour, recorded lectures and a

hands-on TPD session. Our institution selected a locally advanced non-

small cell lung cancer case to teach the principles of TPD. Primary

tumor (PT) and lymph node (LN) consensus contours were initially

developed using a 4-dimensional CT scan fused with PET/CT images.

Each MS contoured the PT and involved LNs on these images while

receiving verbal instructions to use the planning station. PT and LN

contours were compared between MSs and consensus contours, and

voxel-based penalty metric equations were used to score regions of

discordance between structure sets. A post-contouring evaluation was

administered to assess the quality of the TPD session using 5-point

Likert scales.

Results: Fourteen fourth-year MSs successfully completed the TPD

session from August through November 2013. MSs reported a median

of 1 RO rotation (range 0-2) at another institution. In general, MSs

over-contoured the PT compared to the consensus contour (median 30.1

cc [range, 17.0-48.7; standard deviation[SD], 9.0] vs 26.5 cc). Despite

the larger volumes, MSs contoured a similar number of CT slices for

the PT, with a median of 16.5 (range 13-33, SD 5.5) vs 17 slices for the

consensus contour. Conversely, MSs under-contoured the involved LNs

(median 5.2 cc [range 2.5-67.6, SD 18.2 cc] vs 13.9 cc for the

consensus contour). MSs also contoured fewer CT slices for LNs

(median 18 [range 7-59, SD 14.3] vs 33 slices). 12 of 14 MSs (86%)

completed the post-contouring evaluation. The TPD session was rated

as extremely important by 83% of MSs (median score 5, range 4-5).

93% (13 of 14) MSs were at least moderately confident with basic TPD

after completing the session. On average, MSs felt more comfortable

with basic TPD and with the planning workstation after compared to

before the session.

Conclusions: We successfully developed and implemented an innovative,

hands-on TPD session, providing proof-of-principle that a TPD curricu-

lum can be developed for MSs. MSs tended to over-contour the PT and

under-contour (i.e. exclude) involved LNs, which is expected given the

level of clinical knowledge required to accurately delineate a target. MSs

reviewed the session favorably and were supportive of the exposure to

TPD. Future RO MS curriculum development should continue to incor-

porate TPD.

Author Disclosure: N.G. Thaker: None. R. Komaki: None. D.W.

Golden: None. N.S. Boehling: None. J.R. Gunther: None. E. Hill-

ebrandt: None. A. Mahajan: None. J.D. Cox: None. S.J. Frank: None.

W.A. Woodward: None. P. Das: None.

2993A National Assessment of Medical Student Knowledge in RadiationOncology and Comparison to Primary Care and Radiation OncologyAttending PhysiciansN.G. Zaorsky,1 T.A. Shaikh,1 E.A. Handorf,1 G. Eastwick,2 A. Hesney,3

E.D. Scher,4 R.T. Jones,5 T.N. Showalter,5 V. Avkshtol,6 H.W. Berhane,7

S.R. Rice,8 and J.E. Meyer1; 1Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA,2Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 3Jefferson

Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA,4Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ,5University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA,6University of Toledo College of Medicine, Toledo, OH, 7University of

Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, 8University of Wisconsin

School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI

Purpose/Objective(s): To (1) evaluate and compare knowledge of 1st

year (MS1) vs 4th year (MS4) medical students about radiation therapy

(RT); and (2) compare MS1 and MS4 knowledge of RT to institution-

matched primary care physicians (PCPs) and radiation oncology (RO)

attending physicians.

Materials/Methods: After IRB approval, we constructed a survey to

evaluate general RT knowledge, including: RO job descriptions,