ESTRO 2020 Abstract book

S725 ESTRO 2020

Training for SBRT and SRS can be augmented viatelehealth virtual classroom sessions for radiationoncologists, medical physicists, and medicaltechnologists. This appears to be equally or moreeffective than in-person training for many topics overa longitudinal period.

surgical treatment (OR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.08-1.66). Sensitivity analyses revealed no relevant change of effect

estimates. Conclusion

Treatment differs between East and West Germany and is associated with the presence of a radiotherapy or urology clinic. PO-1284 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Telehealth Courses for SBRT/SRS Training in Latin America D. Martinez Perez 1 , B. Garcia 1 , D. Roa 2 , H. Gay 3 , I. Chetty 4 , M. Hermansen 5 , M. Mcleod 6 , J. Hao 6 , S. Castaneda 7 , C. Lo 6 , A. Sherry 6 , R. Del Castillo Pacora 1 , G. Sarria Bardales 1 , B. Li 8 1 Oncosalud - AUNA, Radiation Oncology, Lima, Peru ; 2 University of California, Radiation Oncology, Irvine- CA, USA ; 3 Washington University School of Medicine, Radiation Oncology Department, St. Louis Washington, USA ; 4 Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Michigan, USA ; 5 University of Florida, Neurosurgery Department, Florida, USA ; 6 Vanderbilt University, Medical School, Nashville, USA ; 7 Drexel University College of Medicine, Radiation Oncology Department, Philadelphia, USA ; 8 University of California San Francisco, Radiation Oncology, San Francisco, USA (SBRT) andstereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are effective treatmentsthat can reduce treatment times and increase tumorcontrol. While a growing number of Latin American clinicshave acquired advanced technologies capable ofadministering SBRT and SRS, there are few accessibletraining opportunities and experienced clinicians that feelcomfortable treating patients with SBRT/SRS. Rayos ContraCancer (RCC) seeks to measure the effectiveness oftelehealth support (providers assisting other providers) forpractical skills in SBRT/SRS, which would greatly expandtraining opportunities for low-middle income countryclinics worldwide. Material and Methods RCC performed telehealth training using the ProjectECHO™ model for two high-volume cancer centers in Lima,Peru. Centers were invited for two onsite training coursesin November to record baseline knowledge, short- termimprovement in knowledge, and establish rapport with theclinics. Then, during January to March 2019, twelvetelehealth virtual classroom sessions were conductedthrough a SBRT/SRS curriculum developed by RCC.Sessions featured U.S.-based radiation oncologyeducators using the Zoom Web Conferenceplatform. Surveys were given pre- and post- curriculum tomeasure participants’ confidence in practical aspectsof SBRT/SRS, based on Likert-scales of 1 to 5. Confidence inIdentifying Structural Anatomy, Contouring Ability,Evaluating DVH, Plan Evaluation, Delineation of Tissues,Port Film Evaluation, and Cone Beam CT Evaluationwas recorded through a RedCap Database. Individuals whodid not participate in the telehealth sessions formed thenegative control group. All individuals, regardless ofparticipation, completed a final self- assessment in Aprilafter the longitudinal curriculum concluded. Results Pre- and post- surveys were completed by 31telehealth participants: 8 radiation oncologists, 7medical physicists, and 16 medical technologists.Participants’ mean change in confidence was +0.2(4.6 to 4.8) in Identifying Structural Anatomy, +0.1(4.3 to 4.4) in Contouring Ability, +0.3 (4.3 to 4.6) inEvaluating DVH, +0.4 (4.3 to 4.7) in Plan Evaluation,+0.3 (4.2 to 4.5) in Delineation of Tissues, +0.2 (4.1to 4.3) in Port Film Evaluation, and +0.0 (4.5 to 4.5)in CBCT Evaluation. Conclusion Purpose or Objective Stereotactic body radiation therapy

Poster: Clinical track: Communication

PO-1285 Gender disparity among United States academic oncology program leadership M. Chowdhary 1 , A. Chowdhary 2 , T. Royce 3 , K. Patel 4 , A. Chhabra 5 , S. Jain 6 , M. Knoll 7 , N. Vapiwala 8 , B. Pro 2 , G. Marwaha 1 1 Rush University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Chicago, USA ; 2 Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Hematology and Medical Oncology, Chicago, USA ; 3 University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Radiation Oncology, Chapel Hill, USA ; 4 Kaiser Permanente, Radiation Oncology, Atlanta, USA ; 5 Central Connecticut Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Middlesex, USA ; 6 Rush University Medical Center, Hematology and Medical Oncology, Chicago, USA ; 7 John Theurer Cancer Center of Hackensack University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Hackensack, USA ; 8 University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, USA Purpose or Objective Female underrepresentation in academic medicine leadership is well-documented; however, oncology specific data are scarce. This study evaluates female leadership representation in academic medical oncology (MO), radiation oncology (RO) and surgical oncology (SO) programs. Furthermore, we examine the impact of female leadership on overall female faculty representation. Material and Methods A total of 265 (97%) actively accredited MO [146 of 153], RO [93 of 94] and SO [27 of 27] training programs in the United States were included. The gender of overall faculty and those in leadership positions (program director and departmental chair/division chief) of each program was determined using hospital websites. The chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was used to examine whether the observed proportions of females in leadership positions deviate significantly from the expected proportion based on the actual proportion of overall female faculty in MO, RO and SO. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare rates of female faculty representation across each program based on the presence/absence of a female in a leadership position for MO, RO and SO. Results A total of 6,030 faculty were identified. Total female faculty representation in MO, RO and SO was 37.1% (1,563/4,215), 30.7% (389/1,269) and 38.8% (212/546), respectively. Female representation in leadership positions was 31.4% (83/264), 17.4% (31/178) and 11.1% (5/45), respectively. The observed proportion of females in leadership positions was significantly lower than the expected proportion of females in leadership positions for RO (p<0.001) and SO (p<0.001), but not MO (p=0.057). When restricting for only the Chair position, female representation was 21.7% (30 of 138), 11.7% (11 of 94) and 3.8% (1 of 26) in MO, RO and SO, respectively. On subset analysis, the observed proportion of females in Chair positions deviated significantly from the expected value for all three disciplines (p<0.001). 47.9%, 33% and 18.5% of MO, RO and SO programs had ≥1 female in a leadership position, respectively. Programs that had a female in a leadership position had a higher mean percentage of overall female faculty than those that