Main Session
Sep
27
PQA 02 - Pediatric Cancer, Sarcoma and Cutaneous Tumors, Medical Education & Professional Development, and Health Services Research
Presenter(s)
Diancil Alejandra Ibarra Llamas, MD - Hospital Universitario Dr.Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon
D. A. Ibarra Llamas1, O. Vidal Gutiérrez1, R. Pineiro Retif1, D. Ruiz Sánchez1, D. Hernandez Martinez2, S. Núñez Abaroa1, G. De Hoyos Gutiérrez1, and A. C. C. Ahumada Pamanes1,2; 1Hospital Universitario "Dr José Eleuterio González", Monterrey, NL, Mexico, 2Centro Universitario Contra el Cancer UANL, Monterrey, NL, Mexico
Purpose/Objective(s):
Radiation therapy (RT) is central to cancer care, yet undergraduate exposure to radiation oncology remains limited. This study described awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of RT among medical students.Materials/Methods:
A cross-sectional survey using non-probabilistic sampling was administered to medical students across all six years of the curriculum at a Mexican university. The questionnaire, adapted from validated awareness instruments, assessed four domains: departmental awareness and services, knowledge of modalities and equipment, understanding of clinical indications, and perceptions of RT utilization. Knowledge items generated a composite score; perception items used Likert responses. Descriptive statistics were stratified by academic year.Results:
Among 122 respondents (mean age 21.5 ± 3.1 years; 66% female; 55% in years 4–6), 38.5% had previously completed a formal undergraduate oncology course. Overall, 82% reported awareness of the radiation oncology department; however, only 23% correctly identified its location. Direct exposure to the department increased from 14.5% in early-year students (years 1–3) to 41.7% in advanced-year students (years 4–6). Similarly, confidence in available services rose from 4.8% to 20.0%, although more than 40% reported limited or no knowledge of departmental services. When asked about the most common referral indications, adjuvant (36.1%) and neoadjuvant (36.1%) treatment were most frequently selected, followed by palliative (17.2%) and definitive treatment (10.7%), without a clear academic gradient. Notably, perceptions of referral patterns remained relatively consistent regardless of prior oncology coursework. Perceptions of RT’s therapeutic role were largely favorable: 78.7% agreed or strongly agreed that RT plays a definitive role, equivalent to or better than surgery, in selected cancers, and 66.3% agreed that it is the most effective treatment in certain oncologic emergencies, though uncertainty remained. In estimating overall utilization, 32.8% selected 50–75% of cancer patients as requiring RT, while 27% reported uncertainty. Additionally, 37% believed RT is indicated only for advanced or incurable disease (43.5% early vs. 30.0% advanced). More than half (52%) perceived RT as underutilized in cancer care, with no meaningful variation by academic level. Interest in additional educational activities was high (78%).Conclusion:
High institutional awareness contrasts with limited experiential exposure and incomplete understanding of RT’s clinical scope. Although exposure improves with academic progression, misconceptions and perceptions regarding referral patterns and utilization remain relatively stable across training levels. These findings suggest that current undergraduate exposure may be insufficient to ensure a comprehensive understanding of radiation oncology’s clinical scope and role within modern cancer care.