(P012) Characteristics of Mentorship During Radiation Oncology Residency

Publication
Article
OncologyOncology Vol 29 No 4_Suppl_1
Volume 29
Issue 4_Suppl_1

Almost half of current radiation oncology residents do not have a mentor. Of those with mentors, most established relationships early in their training, during PGY-2 or prior. Therefore, it is imperative to intervene early in the training process to produce successful mentorship experiences. Many residents require more than one active mentor, which enables multiple goals to be met, such as career development, increasing one’s research portfolio, networking, and coping with residency.

Gurleen Dhami, MD, Wendy Gao, MD, Michael Gensheimer, MD, Andrew D. Trister, MD, PhD, Gabrielle M. Kane, MD, Jing Zeng, MD; University of Washington Medical Center

PURPOSE: The mentor-mentee relationship iscrucialduring residency trainingto fosterprofessionaland personal growth. Multiple surveys inotherresidency specialties have identified the mentorship’s role inprofessional development and career satisfaction. This national survey of radiation oncology residents was conducted toidentify keycharacteristics of resident mentorship to identify areas for improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all radiation oncology residents/recent graduates at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency programs, identified per the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) member directory. Questions assessed demographics, prevalence of formal mentorship program, opinions about the value of mentorship, and details of the relationship. Responses were scored on a 5-point ordinal Likert scale.

RESULTS: Out of 596 survey invitations, 157 residents responded (25%). Justover half of respondents had a current mentor (53%).The majority found their mentors early in training, with 49% identified during postgraduate year (PGY)-2, 28% establishing relationships during medical school, and only 14% during PGYs 3,4, and 5. Mentors weremost commonly selected from faculty members whom the residents knew (64%). They were also identified by contacting faculty members withsimilarinterests(33%) and by recommendations from others (29%).Most mentors were chosen from the junior faculty (29%) but also included senior faculty members (19%), radiation oncologists at another academic center (18%), other faculty members at the same institution (10%), program directors (11%), department chairs (6%), and others (7%).

Residents often had more than one active mentor, with most having two to three active mentors (68%),while26% had one mentor, and 6% had more than active mentors. Frequent and regular meetings were a common feature of the mentor-mentee relationship, with 28% meeting more than once per week, 30% meeting once per week, and 30% meeting once per month. Only 13% of residents met twice per year or less with their mentors. The most valued trait that was desired from a mentor was approachability (90%). Other desired traits included availability (82%), ability to provide opportunities (77%), and a clinical role model (68%). The majority of residents found mentorship helpful for career development (83%), research (75%), lifestyle/personal advice (71%), networking (46%),and coping with residency (46%).

CONCLUSION: Almost half of current radiation oncology residents do not have a mentor. Of those with mentors, most established relationships early in their training, during PGY-2 or prior. Therefore, it is imperative to intervene early in the training process to produce successful mentorship experiences. Many residents require more than one active mentor, which enables multiple goals to be met, such as career development, increasing one’s research portfolio, networking, and coping with residency.

Proceedings of the 97th Annual Meeting of the American Radium Society - americanradiumsociety.org

Articles in this issue

(P005) Ultrasensitive PSA Identifies Patients With Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer Requiring Postop Radiotherapy
(P001) Disparities in the Local Management of Breast Cancer in the United States According to Health Insurance Status
(P002) Predictors of CNS Disease in Metastatic Melanoma: Desmoplastic Subtype Associated With Higher Risk
(P003) Identification of Somatic Mutations Using Fine Needle Aspiration: Correlation With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
(P004) A Retrospective Study to Assess Disparities in the Utilization of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Proton Therapy (PT) in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer (PCa)
(S001) Tumor Control and Toxicity Outcomes for Head and Neck Cancer Patients Re-Treated With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)-A Fifteen-Year Experience
(S003) Weekly IGRT Volumetric Response Analysis as a Predictive Tool for Locoregional Control in Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy 
(S004) Combination of Radiotherapy and Cetuximab for Aggressive, High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck: A Propensity Score Analysis
(S005) Radiotherapy for Carcinoma of the Hypopharynx Over Five Decades: Experience at a Single Institution
(S002) Prognostic Value of Intraradiation Treatment FDG-PET Parameters in Locally Advanced Oropharyngeal Cancer
(P006) The Role of Sequential Imaging in Cervical Cancer Management
(P008) Pretreatment FDG Uptake of Nontarget Lung Tissue Correlates With Symptomatic Pneumonitis Following Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR)
(P009) Monte Carlo Dosimetry Evaluation of Lung Stereotactic Body Radiosurgery
(P010) Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Treatment of Adrenal Gland Metastasis: Toxicity, Outcomes, and Patterns of Failure
(P011) Stereotactic Radiosurgery and BRAF Inhibitor Therapy for Melanoma Brain Metastases Is Associated With Increased Risk for Radiation Necrosis
Recent Videos
Although no responses were observed in 11 patients receiving abemaciclib monotherapy, combination therapies with abemaciclib may offer clinical benefit.
Findings show no difference in overall survival between various treatments for metastatic RCC previously managed with immunotherapy and TKIs.
An epigenomic profiling approach may help pick up the entire tumor burden, thereby assisting with detecting sarcomatoid features in those with RCC.
Future meetings may address how immunotherapy, bispecific agents, and CAR T-cell therapies can further impact the AML treatment paradigm.
Treatment with revumenib appeared to demonstrate efficacy among patients with KMT2A-rearranged acute leukemia in the phase 2 AUGMENT-101 study.
Advocacy groups such as Cancer Support Community and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society may help support patients with CML undergoing treatment.
Paolo Tarantino, MD, discusses the potential utility of agents such as datopotamab deruxtecan and enfortumab vedotin in patients with breast cancer.
Paolo Tarantino, MD, highlights strategies related to screening and multidisciplinary collaboration for managing ILD in patients who receive T-DXd.
Data from the REVEAL study affirm elevated white blood cell counts and higher variant allele frequency as risk factors for progression in polycythemia vera.
Additional analyses of patient-reported outcomes and MRD status in the QuANTUM-First trial are also ongoing, says Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD.
Related Content