Main Session
Sep
27
PQA 02 - Pediatric Cancer, Sarcoma and Cutaneous Tumors, Medical Education & Professional Development, and Health Services Research
Presenter(s)
Matthew Thoonkuzhy, MD - Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA
M. Thoonkuzhy1,2, and M. S. Katz1; 1Tufts Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, 2Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
Purpose/Objective(s): A detailed understanding of anatomy is a fundamental skillset for radiation oncologists. With increasing normal tissue avoidance and multimodal imaging, residency program directors are finding a greater need for an oncoanatomy refresher course as part of the curriculum. Materials/Methods: Five weekly sessions in neuroanatomy, head and neck anatomy, thoracic anatomy, gastrointestinal anatomy, and pelvic anatomy were carried out during the 2025-2026 academic year. Each session was divided into three main components: 1) radiology review, 2) physical examination mastery, and 3) organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring. In the first portion, participants are taught basic radiographic pearls and nuanced skills in imaging specific to the anatomic region. During the second portion, there is a complete review of physical examination technique, including endoscopic evaluation. In the final part, the residents participate in a contouring workshop, where junior residents individually rotate through stations to evaluate or complete a designated contour of an OAR and are subsequently evaluated by senior residents/faculty. Pre- and post- knowledge-based tests were administered 1 week prior to the course and 6 months after the course to demonstrate long-term retention using mean difference as the primary outcome. In addition, a 10-question post-course Likert survey was also distributed to understand overall course satisfaction. The goal of this curriculum is to improve oncoanatomy knowledge to aid in radiation treatment planning during residency training and clinical board examination performance. Results: Seven residents participated in the oncoanatomy course in summer 2025. Six completed the pre-test and five completed the post-test. Mean pre-test score was 55% (SD 16; n = 6), compared with 66% (SD 13; n = 5) on the mean post-test score. This represents an absolute increase of 11% and a relative increase of 20%. The mean difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.24, CI ± 20.2). The Cohen’s effect size was moderate-to-large (d = 0.75). 5 participants completed the post-course survey. All responses were = 3 on a 5-point Likert scale, with the median item scores of 4 or 5. Overall, 64% of responses were 5. Conclusion: A structured, multidisciplinary oncoanatomy curriculum was associated with a moderate-to-large improvement in knowledge test scores at 6 months and high course satisfaction. Although statistical significance was not reached, given the small sample size, the observed effect size and positive survey responses suggest potential meaningful educational benefit. This curriculum is feasible and supports treatment planning competency and board preparation. Larger studies are warranted to further validate its impact.