K. Sura

Comparison of Self-Reported Data on Student Doctor Network to Objective Data of the National Resident Matching Program

PURPOSEnTo compare matching outcomes between self-reporting on Student Doctor Network (SDN) and objective data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).nnnMATERIALS AND METHODSnData were collected from SDN starting in the 2010 to 2011 academic year and extending to the 2015 to 2016 academic year. A total of 193 radiation oncology applicants had reported data during the period. A total of four applicants (2.1%) did not match and were excluded from the analysis. Applicants were compared with the NRMP charting outcomes of 2011, 2014, andxa02016.nnnRESULTSnUS allopathic seniors comprised a majority of those reporting on SDN (95.2%). The majority of applicants (58.2%) self-reported in the later years between 2014 and 2016. Those reporting on SDN were more likely to be members of Alpha Omega Alpha (39.7% on SDN versus 27.5% in 2016 NRMP, 23.6% in 2014 NRMP, and 31.2% in 2011 NRMP) and had higher mean United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 and step 2 scores. Of the applicants, 81% matched within their top three ranked residencies on their match list. Common themes associated with reasons for their successful match included research experience, letters of recommendation, and away rotations. Common themes associated with advice given to future applicants were the importance of research, personality, and away rotations.nnnCONCLUSIONnSelf-reporting on SDN does have a bias toward more successful radiation oncology applicants compared with the objective NRMP data. However, if self-reporting increases, SDN may serve as a reasonably accurate source of information for future applicants.

Matched-Pair Analysis of High Dose Versus Standard Dose Definitive Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Background Recent data have called into question the use of dose‐escalated radiotherapy for locally advanced non–small‐cell lung cancer and the effect of cardiac radiotherapy doses. We compared the outcomes after chemoradiation using standard‐dose (SD; ≤ 64 Gy) or high‐dose (HD; > 64 Gy) radiotherapy. Patients and Methods A matched‐pair analysis was performed of 178 patients with stage IIB‐IIIB non–small‐cell lung cancer for SD versus HD groups using age ± 5 years, gender, stage, tumor size ± 2 cm, yielding 86 patients. The clinical endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox regression method. Results The median follow‐up was 16.8 months for the entire cohort (HD, 21.6 months; SD, 12.1 months; P = .06). No significant differences were found in disease stage, histologic type, age, performance status, gender, or tumor size between the 2 groups. The median overall survival was 23.1 months for the HD group (95% confidence interval, 20.6‐25.5) versus 13.6 months for the SD group (95% confidence interval, 9.6‐17.5; P = .03). The 2‐year freedom from locoregional recurrence was 48.7% for the SD and 65.3% for the HD groups (P = .07). The 2‐year freedom from distant metastasis was 46.7% for the SD and 70.3% for the HD groups (P = .05). A higher cardiac V30 dose (P = .03) was the strongest predictor of survival besides clinical stage (P = .02). Conclusion Dose‐escalated radiotherapy resulted in improved survival and recurrence rates. A higher cardiac dose was a significant predictor of decreased survival. Micro‐Abstract Recent data have shown a survival detriment with dose‐escalated radiation for locally advanced non–small‐cell lung cancer with concurrent chemotherapy. Using data from a single institution, a matched‐pair analysis comparing patients treated with standard versus dose escalation was performed, yielding 86 patients. Higher dose radiotherapy was associated with improved outcomes, but a lower cardiac dose was a significant predictor of survival.

First Annual Report of the Resident Committee of the American College of Radiation Oncology

The American College of Radiation Oncology (ACRO) Resident Committee (RC) was established to provide meaningful educational content, professional development, and opportunities for service within the United States radiation oncology resident community. The goals of the RCmirror those of the ACROmission at large to Bpromote success in the practice of radiation oncology through education, responsible socioeconomic advocacy, and integration of science and technology into clinical practice.^ The ACRO Board of Chancellors has given marked independence to the ACRO RC to explore and implement a resident-focused agenda, which has allowed great ideas to flourish into full-fledged national programs. The RC has worked diligently to improve resident quality of life and education through the creation and implementation of distinct subcommittees within the RC, which include the following: membership, mentorship, research, scholarship, and scientific. Over the past year, the ACRO RC has developed and implemented a variety of projects; here, we report the results of the 2016–2017 academic year.