Search

Importance: Asian American individuals are not underrepresented in medicine; however, aggregation in prior workforce analyses may mask underlying disparities., Objective: To assess representation by Asian race and disaggregated subgroups in the US allopathic medical school workforce., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) special reports, generated using the AAMC Applicant-Matriculant Data File, Student Records System, Graduate Medical Education Track Survey, and faculty roster. Participants included medical school applicants, matriculants, graduates, residents, and faculty enrolled or employed at US allopathic medical schools between 2013 and 2021. Data were analyzed between March and May 2024., Exposure: Asian race or ethnic subgroup as per AAMC and US Census Bureau Office of Management and Budget criteria, including Bangladeshi American, Cambodian American, Chinese American, Filipino American, Indian American, Indonesian American, Japanese American, Korean American, Pakistani American, Taiwanese American, and Vietnamese American., Main Outcomes and Measures: Representation quotients (RQ) were used to indicate representation that was equivalent (RQ of 1), higher (RQ greater than 1), or lower (RQ less than 1) than expected representation based on US population estimates. One-way analysis of variance and linear regression models assessed mean RQ differences by career stage and over time, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons., Results: In this study, Asian American individuals accounted for 94 934 of 385 775 applicants (23%), 39 849 of 158 468 matriculants (24%), 37 579 of 152 453 graduates (24%), 229 899 of 1 035 512 residents (22%), and 297 413 of 1 351 187 faculty members (26%). The mean (SD) RQ was significantly greater among Asian American residents (3.44 [0.15]) and faculty (3.54 [0.03]) compared with Asian applicants (3.3 [0.04]), matriculants (3.37 [0.03]), or graduates (3.31 [0.06]). Upon disaggregation, RQ was significantly lower among residents and faculty in 10 of 12 subgroups. Although subgroups, such as Taiwanese American, Indian American, and Chinese American, had RQs greater than 1 (eg, Chinese American graduates: mean [SD], RQ, 3.90 [0.21]), the RQs were less than 1 for Laotian, Cambodian, and Filipino American subgroups (eg, Filipino American graduates: mean [SD], RQ, 0.93 [0.06]) at almost every career stage. No significant RQ changes were observed over time for Laotian American and Cambodian American trainees, with a resident RQ of 0 in 8 of 25 and 4 of 25 specialties, respectively. Faculty RQ increased in 9 of 12 subgroups, but Cambodian American, Filipino American, Indonesian American, Laotian American, and Vietnamese American faculty (eg, Vietnamese American faculty: mean [SD], RQ, 0.59 [0.08]) had RQs less than 1., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Asian representation in US allopathic medical schools, Laotian American, Cambodian American, and Filipino American individuals were underrepresented at each stage of the physician workforce pathway. Efforts to promote diversity in medicine should account for these disparities to avoid perpetuating inequities.

Importance: There are limited studies assessing stage at diagnosis and risk of death among all 5 federally defined races in the US among adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer., Objective: To identify racial disparities in stage at diagnosis and survival among AYA patients with cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from a US national hospital-based oncology database on AYA patients, aged 15 to 39 years, with the 10 deadliest cancers among AYA patients who received a diagnosis from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2017, with 6 months or more of follow-up. Analyses by race were categorized by the 5 federally defined races in the US: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White). White patients served as the majority reference group. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to September 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were late stage at diagnosis (logistic regression with adjusted odds ratios [AORs] and 95% CIs) and overall survival (log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression with adjusted hazard ratios [AHRs] and 95% CIs)., Results: A total of 291 899 AYA patients (median age, 33 years [IQR, 28-37 years]; 186 549 female patients [64%]; 189 812 [65%] with stage I or II cancers) were evaluated. The cohort included 1457 American Indian or Alaska Native patients (1%), 8412 Asian patients (3%), 40 851 Black patients (14%), 987 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients (0.3%), and 240 192 White patients (82%). Cancers included breast (n = 79 195 [27%]), lymphoma (n = 45 500 [16%]), melanoma (n = 36 724 [13%]), testis (n = 31 413 [11%]), central nervous system (n = 26 070 [9%]), colon or rectum (n = 22 545 [8%]), cervix (n = 20 923 [7%]), sarcoma (n = 14 951 [5%]), ovary (n = 8982 [3%]), and lung (n = 5596 [2%]). Risk of late-stage diagnosis was higher for Asian (AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14-1.26), Black (AOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.36-1.43), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (AOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55) patients compared with White patients. Overall survival differed by race for all cancer sites, except cancers of the central nervous system and ovary. Risk of death was higher for American Indian or Alaska Native (AHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), Black (AHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.19-1.26), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (AHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44) patients but lower for Asian patients (AHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95) compared with White patients., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of AYA patients suggests that stage at diagnosis and survival varied across races for the 10 deadliest AYA cancers. These results support the need for tailored interventions and informed public policy to achieve cancer care equity for all races.

Importance: The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity., Objective: To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials., Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov., Findings: Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC)., Conclusions and Relevance: While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.

Purpose: Many medical schools in the United States have affiliated pathway, preparatory, and/or prematriculation programs that enroll a high percentage of students historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM). The purpose of this pilot study was to better characterize exposures to radiation oncology (RO) among students in these programs and determine the feasibility of incorporating a radiation oncologist within their pre-existing format if nonexistent., Methods and Materials: During the summers of 2021 and 2022, a radiation oncologist gave a presentation about basic principles of cancer care to 18 unique student groups in 12 premedical programs affiliated with 8 medical schools. Participating students were asked to complete an anonymous postpresentation questionnaire. Descriptive statistics are reported., Results: A total of 467 students attended the presentations, and 241 completed the questionnaire (response rate 52.0%). The majority of participants reported being female (63.5%), URiM (66.4%), and low income (57.3%). Students were less likely to report previous teaching from a radiation oncologist (11.2%) than a surgical (17.0%) or medical oncologist (18.3%). Prior clinical shadowing with a radiation oncologist (2.9%) was also less likely than shadowing a surgical oncologist (5.0%), medical oncologist (6.6%), or any other physician (53.1%). Students were also less likely to previously believe that radiation could cure cancer (65.8%) compared with surgery (74.9%) or chemotherapy (89.3%). After the presentation, 168 students (69.7%) were more interested in a career in RO, and 211 students (87.6%) responded that the presentation was either quite or extremely valuable (median Likert-type score, 5; interquartile range, 4-5)., Conclusions: Many of the students in premedical programs lack prior exposure to RO or knowledge of multidisciplinary cancer care, which was ameliorated by a simple yet effective presentation across a variety of different types of programs in this study. Longitudinal assessment of different types of educational initiatives and students' ultimate career trajectory will help optimize future RO initiatives among premedical URiM students., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate United States (US) radiation oncology (RO) program directors' (PDs) attitudes and practices regarding racial/ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to better understand potential effects on underrepresented in medicine (UIM) residents in RO., Methods and Materials: A 28-item survey was developed using the validated Ethnic Harassment Experiences Scale and the Daily Life Experiences subscale, as well as input from DEI leaders in RO. The survey was institutional review board-approved and administered to RO PDs. PDs were provided with the American Association of Medical Colleges definition of UIM, that is, "Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population." Descriptive statistics were used in analysis., Results: The response rate was 71% (64/90). Institutional Culture and Beliefs: 42% responded that they had a department DEI director. A minority (17%, n = 11) agreed "I believe that people from UIM backgrounds have equal access to quality tertiary education in the US." The majority (97%, n = 62) agreed "My program values residents from UIM backgrounds." Support and Resources: The majority (78%, n = 50) agreed "My program has resources in place to assist/provide support for resident physicians from UIM backgrounds." Interview and Recruitment: Most PDs (53%) had not taken part in activities aimed at recruiting UIM residents and 17% had interviewed no UIM applicants in the past 5 years for residency. Resident Experiences of Racism: 17% (n = 11) agreed "UIM residents in my program have reported incidents of racism to me," and 28% (n = 18) agreed "I believe that UIM residents in my program have been treated differently because of their race/ethnicity by faculty, staff, coresidents or patients.", Conclusions: Most PDs reported that they did not believe that UIM residents were treated differently in their department because of their race/ethnicity, and only a minority had received reports of racial discrimination experienced by residents. These data contrast resident experiences and suggest a disconnect between DEI perceptions and resident experiences among US RO PDs that should be addressed through increased programmatic action and evaluation., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines since 2009. It is unknown whether task force members for these guidelines are representative of the diversity of the radiation oncology field, particularly in comparison to the ASTRO membership demographics. We sought to characterize the demographic composition of all task force members to date., Methods: The author list for ASTRO-led published guidelines from 2010 to 2022 was assessed. Main practice location/institution was extracted from the guideline publication. Self-identified gender and race/ethnicity were obtained from the ASTRO membership database. Years of experience were measured as the number of years post-board certification at time of guideline development. For United States (US)-based physicians, gender was confirmed with the National Provider Identifier database. Proportions of task force members overall and by individual guideline were described by gender, underrepresented in medicine (URM) status, geography (US vs international), US region (if US based), years of experience (separated into ≤5 years including residents, 6-12 years, and >12 years), and type of practice. Proportions for gender, URM, and geography were compared with ASTRO membership demographics., Results: Between 2010 and 2022, there were 25 guideline task forces, with a total of 366 participants: 233 men, 126 women, and 7 unknown gender. There were more men than women serving on most individual task force topics, with 28% of all task forces having >80% composition of men. Of those with self-identified race/ethnicity, 9/204 (4.4%) were URM, which was lower in proportion to URM self-identified ASTRO members (336/3277, 10.3%; P = .007). Most participants were based in the US (n = 323, 88.3%), had >12 years of experience (n = 141, 38.5%), and were from academic institutions (n = 302, 82.5%). Community practitioners were less likely to be women or URM., Conclusions: Improved data collection and more intentional efforts are needed to ensure that the diversity of guidelines task forces is representative of ASTRO membership and the specialty., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Prior efforts to characterize disparities in radiation therapy access and receipt have not comprehensively investigated interplay between race, socioeconomic status, and geography relative to oncologic outcomes. This study sought to define these complex relationships at the US county level for prostate cancer (PC) and invasive breast (BC) cancer to build a tool that facilitates identification of "radiotherapy deserts"-regions with mismatch between radiation therapy resources and oncologic need., Methods and Materials: An ecologic study model was constructed using national databases to evaluate 3,141 US counties. Radiation therapy resources and use densities were operationalized as physicians to persons at risk (PPR) and use to persons at risk (UPR): the number of attending radiation oncologists and Medicare beneficiaries per 100,000 persons at risk, respectively. Oncologic need was defined by "hot zone" counties with ≥2 standard deviations (SDs) above mean incidence and death rates. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions examined links between PPR and UPR densities, epidemiologic variables, and hot zones for oncologic outcomes. Statistics are reported at a significance level of P < .05., Results: The mean (SD) PPR and UPR densities were 2.1 (5.9) and 192.6 (557.6) for PC and 1.9 (5.3) and 174.4 (501.0) for BC, respectively. Counties with high PPR and UPR densities were predominately metropolitan (odds ratio [OR], 2.9-4.4), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 1.5-2.3). Incidence and death rate hot zones were largely nonmetropolitan (OR, 0.3-0.6), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 3.2-6.3). Lower PPR density was associated with death rate hot zones for both types of cancer (OR, 0.8-0.9); UPR density was generally not linked to oncologic outcomes on multivariable analysis., Conclusions: The study found that mismatch between oncologic need with PPR and UPR disproportionately affects nonmetropolitan communities with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents. An interactive web platform (bit.ly/densitymaps) was developed to visualize "radiotherapy deserts" and drive targeted investigation of underlying barriers to care in areas of highest need, with the goal of reducing health inequities in this context., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A United States (US) radiation oncology curriculum, developed using best practices for curriculum inquiry, is needed to guide residency education and qualifying examinations. Competency-based training, including entrustable professional activities (EPAs), provides an outcomes-based approach to modern graduate medical education. This study aimed to define US radiation oncology EPAs and curricular content domains using a deliberative process with input from multiple stakeholder groups., Methods and Materials: The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Core Curriculum Project Leadership Committee developed initial content domains and EPAs. Following recruitment of stakeholders, a Delphi process was used to achieve consensus. In the first round, content domains and EPAs were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion, clarity, time allocation (content domains), and level of training (EPAs). Participants submitted additional content domains and EPAs for consideration. Any content domains or EPAs 1 standard deviation below the median for inclusion and exclusion underwent Leadership Committee review. All participants completing the first Delphi round were invited to the second round. Percent curriculum time allocated for content domains and a single subdomain were finalized. New EPAs or EPAs undergoing major revisions were reviewed., Results: A total of 186 participants representing diverse stakeholder groups participated. One hundred fourteen completed the first Delphi round (61.3%). Of 114 invited, 77 participants completed the second round of the Delphi process (67.5%). Overall, 6 of 9 content domains met consensus, 1 content domain was removed, and 2 content domains were combined. Four subdomains of a single content domain were reviewed and met consensus. Consensus on percent time allocated per content domain and subdomain was reached. Of 55 initial EPAs, 52 final EPAs met consensus., Conclusions: Deliberative curriculum inquiry was successfully used to develop a consensus on US radiation oncology content domains and EPAs. These data can guide the allocation of educational time in training programs, help inform weighting for qualifying examinations, and help guide clinical training and resident assessment., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Reduced access and utilization of radiation therapy (RT) is a well-documented healthcare disparity observed among racial and ethnic minority groups in the USA and a contributor to the inferior health outcomes observed among Black, Hispanic, and Native American patient groups. What is less understood are the points during the process of care following RT consultation at which patients either fail to complete their prescribed treatment or encounter delays. Identification of those points where significant differences exist among different patient groups may help identify opportunities to close gaps in the access of clinically indicated RT., Methods and Materials: This analysis examines 261,559 RT episodes abstracted from Medicare claims and beneficiary data between 2016 and 2018 to determine rates of treatment initiation following planning and timeliness of treatment completion for different racial groups., Results: Failure to initiate treatment was observed to be 29.3% relatively greater for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients than for White and Asian patients. Among episodes for which treatment was initiated, Black and Hispanic patients were observed to require a significantly greater number of calendar days (when adjusted for fraction number) for completion than for White, Asian, and Native American patients., Conclusions: There appears to be a patient cohort for which RT disparities may be more marginal in their effects-allowing for access to consultation and treatment prescription but not for treatment initiation or timely completion of treatment-and may therefore permit effective solutions to help address current differences in cancer outcomes., (© 2022. W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.)

Purpose: Compared with conventional external-beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for patients with breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC), shorter radiation regimens may be associated with lower treatment noncompletion rates. We assess disparities in receipt of shorter radiation regimens and treatment noncompletion for BC and PC., Patients and Methods: The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried for adjuvant cEBRT or hypofractionated EBRT (hEBRT) for nonmetastatic BC; and definitive cEBRT, moderate hypofractionation (mEBRT), or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized PC. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with treatment noncompletion and receipt of shorter regimens., Findings: We identified 170,386 men with PC (median age [interquartile range], 70 [64-75] years; Black, 17.5%; White, 82.5%) and 306,846 women with BC (61 [52-69] years; Black, 12.3%; White, 87.7%). Among patients who received cEBRT for PC, Black men had higher treatment noncompletion rates compared with White (14.1% v 13.0%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.07 [1.03 to 1.12]; P < .001). In contrast, treatment noncompletion was not disparate with SBRT (Black 1.6% v White 1.3%; 1.20 [0.72 to 2.00], P = .49) or mEBRT (Black 9.0% v White 7.1%; 1.05 [0.72 to 1.54], P = .79). From 2004 to 2017, SBRT (0.07% to 11.8%; 1.32 [1.31 to 1.33]) and mEBRT (0.35% to 9.1%; 1.27 [1.25 to 1.28]) increased (both P < .001); however, Black men were consistently less likely to receive SBRT (7.4% v White, 8.3%; 0.84 [0.79 to 0.89], P < .001). Among women with BC, there were no racial differences in treatment noncompletion; however, hEBRT was associated with lower treatment noncompletion rates (1.0% v cEBRT 2.3%; 0.39 [0.35 to 0.44], P < .001). Although hEBRT for BC increased (0.8% to 35.6%) between 2004 and 2017, Black women were less likely to receive hEBRT (10.4% v 15.3%; 0.78 [0.75 to 0.81], P < .001)., Interpretation: Black patients were consistently less likely to receive hypofractionated radiation for PC or BC, despite evidence suggesting that shorter regimens may lower rates of treatment noncompletion with similar oncologic outcomes.

The American Cancer Society estimates approximately 268,490 new cases of prostate cancer and approximately 34,500 deaths caused by prostate cancer in the United States for 2022. Globally, a total of 1,414,259 new cases of prostate cancer and 375,304 related deaths were reported in 2020. Well-documented health disparities and inequities exist along the continuum of care for prostate cancer management-from screening to diagnostic and staging work-up, surveillance, and treatment-ultimately impacting clinical outcomes. This session-based article discusses innovative patient-centered approaches to advance equitable prostate cancer care. It begins with a review of domestic health disparities in diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and it summarizes barriers and solutions to achieving health equity, such as equity metrics and practice quality improvement projects. Next, a global perspective is provided that describes approaches to address financial and geographic barriers to prostate cancer care, including specific examples of strategies that emphasize the use of the cheapest method of care delivery while maintaining outcomes for drug delivery and radiotherapy.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess how academic radiation oncology departments engage medical students who are either female and/or from racial and ethnic demographic groups that are underrepresented in medicine., Methods and Materials: An electronic survey was sent to all 83 radiation oncology residency program directors (or if applicable medical student directors) whose department is affiliated with an on-site medical school. Questions assessed whether any faculty in the participants' department offer exposure in radiation oncology specifically to medical and premedical student groups whose members are typically women and others underrepresented in medicine, or promote the American Society for Radiation Oncology's Minority Summer Fellowship Award. Barriers to these types of involvement were also assessed., Results: A representative from 54 out of 83 programs responded (response rate 65%). Faculty from 83% of departments had given a presentation to an oncology or radiation oncology medical student interest group. However, faculty from only 18% of departments had given a presentation to a Student National Medical Association chapter, 9% to a Latino Medical Student Association chapter, and 11% to an American Medical Women's Association chapter. Faculty from 15% of departments actively promote the Minority Summer Fellowship to the general student body, and 24% promote it to any minority students who express interest in radiation oncology. Faculty from 22% of departments had given a presentation to a premedical student group, 10% to an undergraduate student group focused on minority or female students, and 20% to a pipeline program for high school (or younger) women or other students who are underrepresented in medicine. Lack of awareness of the existence of such programs, or not being invited, were the most common barriers to participation., Conclusions: Most academic radiation oncology departments do not offer educational outreach specifically targeting women or minority students or promote the Minority Summer Fellowship. Further efforts are needed to break from the status quo and attract a more diverse workforce., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Improving diversity in residency programs has been increasingly emphasized as a means to address gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in medicine. However, limited attention has been given to the potential benefits of training physicians with differences other than gender or race and ethnicity. Americans with a disability represent about 27% of the U.S. population, whereas 1%-3% of physician trainees report having a disability. In 2013, a national survey identified only 86 physicians or trainees reporting deafness or hearing loss as a disability. To date, there are no published strategies on how to create an inclusive program for Deaf trainees. Herein, the authors report on the development of a Deaf and American Sign Language (ASL) inclusive residency program that can serve as an academic model for other programs, in any medical specialty, seeking to create an accessible training program for Deaf physicians and that can be adapted for trainees with other disabilities. In March 2017, the radiation oncology residency program at Johns Hopkins University matched an ASL-signing Deaf resident who would begin the program in July 2018. In preparation, department leadership engaged key stakeholders and leaders within the university's health system and among the department faculty, residents, and staff as well as the incoming resident to create an ASL inclusive program. A 5-step transition process for the training program was ultimately developed and implemented. The authors focused on engaging the Deaf trainee and interpreters, engaging health system and departmental leadership, contracting a training consultant and developing oral and written training materials for faculty and staff, and optimizing the workspace via accommodations. Through collaborative preparation, a Deaf and ASL-signing resident was successfully integrated into the residency program. The proposed 5-step transition process provides an effective, engaging model to encourage other institutions that are seeking to employ similar inclusivity initiatives., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Importance: It remains unclear how the historical exclusion of women and racial and ethnic minority groups from medical training, and therefore the oncologic subspecialties, has contributed to rates of faculty diversity among oncology departments over time. Oncologic faculty diversity is an important initiative to help improve care and address health disparities for an increasingly diverse US population with cancer., Objectives: To report trends in academic faculty representation by sex and by race and ethnicity for radiation oncology (RO) and medical oncology (MO) departments and to describe comparisons with the general US population, medical students, RO and MO trainees, clinical department chairs, and faculty in other departments., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges to analyze trends by sex and by race and ethnicity among full-time US faculty in RO and MO departments from 1970 through 2019. Data were analyzed between October 2020 and April 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of women and individuals from underrepresented in medicine (URM) racial and ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous individuals) were calculated among RO and MO academic departments; trends were analyzed over 5 decades. These proportions were compared with cohorts already described. In addition, proportions of women and URM individuals were calculated by faculty rank among RO and MO departments., Results: In 1970, there were 119 total faculty in RO (10 women [8.4%] and 2 URM [1.7%]) and 87 total faculty in MO (11 women [12.6%] and 7 URM [8.0%]). In 2019, there were 2115 total faculty in RO (615 women [29.1%] and 108 URM [5.1%]) and 819 total faculty in MO (312 women [38.1%] and 47 URM [5.7%]). Total faculty numbers increased over time in both RO and MO. Faculty representation of URM women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both RO (95% CI, 0.005%-0.110%; P <. 001 for trend) and MO (95% CI, -0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend) compared with non-URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in RO and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in MO (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for RO (0.03% per decade [95% CI, -0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or MO (0.003% per decade [95% CI, -0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend). Representation of both women and URM individuals among both specialties was lower than their representation in the US population in both 2009 and 2019. Across all cohorts studied, RO faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. At every rank in 2019, the number of total URM faculty represented among both MO and RO remained low (MO: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]; and RO: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that RO and MO academic faculty have increased the representation of women over time, while URM representation has lagged. The URM trends over time need further investigation to inform strategies to improve URM representation in RO and MO.

Purpose: To review and summarize the reported health disparities and inequities in diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer., Methods: We queried the PubMed search engine for original publications studying disparate utilization of diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. Query terms were as follows: prostate AND cancer AND diagnostic AND imaging AND (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) OR computed tomography (CT) OR bone scintigraphy OR positron emission tomography (PET)-CT)) AND (inequities OR disparities OR socioeconomic OR race). Studies were included if they involved United States patients, had diagnostic imaging as a part of their care, and addressed health inequities., Results: A total of 104 studies were captured in the initial query with 17 meeting inclusion criteria, comprising 10 population-based analyses, 5 single institutional analyses, 1 multi-institutional analysis, and 1 review. Socioeconomic status and race were frequently associated with imaging utilization and guideline-concordant care. SEER analyses revealed that African-American men had higher odds of experiencing overuse of pelvic CT/pelvic MRI and bone scans, while older men experienced underuse. Higher income and younger age were more likely to receive imaging that was adherent to NCCN guidelines. African-American and Hispanic men were less likely than white men to receive prostate multiparametric MRI., Conclusion: Race, age, and socioeconomic status play a significant role in the diagnostic management of prostate cancer. Certain demographics are more disparately affected and less likely to receive guideline-concordant care. Continued research and interventions are needed to ensure appropriate and accessible diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer and ultimately the delivery of quality and equitable care.

Purpose: To identify factors predictive of a medical school graduating a high volume of future radiation oncology (RO) residents to better understand potential pathways to effectively recruit women and underrepresented minority (URM) students into RO., Methods and Materials: Demographics for US allopathic medical schools and affiliated RO departments were collected from web resources and correlated with the percentage of graduates from each school currently enrolled in RO residency in 2019, and the probability of at least 1 female or URM student from each school pursuing RO., Results: The median percentage of students per medical school who pursued RO residency was 0.37% (interquartile range, 0.16%-0.66%). A total of 79.7% of schools graduated at least 1 RO resident, whereas 51.7% graduated at least 1 female RO resident and 14.0% graduated at least 1 URM RO resident. The 30 schools graduating the highest percentage of RO residents accounted for 52.1% of current RO residents, only 4 of which were in the top quartile for URM enrollment. Medical students were significantly more likely to pursue RO when there was an affiliated RO department (0.42% vs 0.18%, P < .001) or RO residency program (0.51% vs 0.18%, P < .001), more total RO faculty (r s = 0.521, P < .001), female RO faculty (r s = 0.481, P < .001), and URM RO faculty (r s = 0.197, P < .001). The probability of at least 1 female student pursuing RO was also correlated with the number of female faculty in the affiliated RO department (r pb = 0.348, P = .001), and a similar correlation was observed between URM students and URM faculty (r pb = 0.312, P = .011)., Conclusions: Most RO residents graduate from medical schools with larger affiliated RO departments but fewer URM students. To promote greater RO diversity, outreach should be considered among schools with greater URM enrollment but fewer affiliated radiation oncologists, and among female and URM students in schools that graduate many RO residents., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Black physicians remain disproportionately underrepresented in certain medical specialties, yet comprehensive assessments in radiation oncology (RO) are lacking. Our purpose was to report current and historical representation trends for Black physicians in the US RO workforce., Methods and Materials: Public registries were used to assess significant differences in 2016 representation for US vs RO Black academic full-time faculty, residents, and applicants. Historical changes from 1970 to 2016 were reported descriptively. Linear regression was used to assess significant changes for Black residents and faculty from 1995 to 2016., Results: In 2016, Black people represented 3.2% vs 1.5% (P < .001), 5.6% vs 3.2% (P = .005), and 6.5% vs 5.4% (P = .352) of US vs RO faculty, residents, and applicants, respectively. Although RO residents nearly doubled from 374 (1974) to 720 (2016), Black residents peaked at 31 in 1984 (5.9%; 31 of 522) and fell to 23 (3.2%; 23 of 720) in 2016 across 91 accredited programs; Black US graduate medical education trainees nearly doubled over the same period: 3506 (1984) to 6905 (2016). From 1995 to 2016, Black US resident representation significantly increased by 0.03%/y, but decreased significantly in RO by -0.20%/y before 2006 and did not change significantly thereafter. Over the same period, Black US faculty representation significantly increased by 0.02%/y, whereas Black RO faculty significantly increased by 0.07%/y before 2006, then decreased significantly by -0.16%/y thereafter. The number of Black RO faculty peaked at 37 in 2006 (3.1%; 37 of 1203) and was 27 (1.5%; 27 of 1769) in 2016, despite the nearly 1.5-fold increase in the number of both RO faculty and Black US faculty overall (4169 in 2006 and 6047 in 2016) during that period., Conclusions: Black physicians remain disproportionately underrepresented in RO despite an increasing available pipeline in the US physician workforce. Deliberate efforts to understand barriers to specialty training and inclusion, along with evidence-based targeted interventions to overcome them, are needed to ensure diversification of the RO physician workforce., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study assessed the distribution of race, ethnicity, and sex within the US psychiatry physician workforce and trends from 1987 to 2016., Methods: The authors used physician workforce data to assess differences in race, ethnicity, and sex among psychiatric practicing physicians, faculty, fellows, residents, residency applicants, and medical graduate cohorts. Binomial tests were used for comparison between individual cohorts and to US population statistics. A simple linear regression model was used to assess trends among psychiatric residents and faculty over years 1987-2016., Results: Within psychiatry, historically underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMs) had less representation as residents (16.2%), faculty (8.7%), and practicing physicians (10.4%) compared with the US population (32.6%), Ps < 0.0001. Females were underrepresented as psychiatric practicing physicians (38.5%, P < .0001). There was greater URM representation among residents (16.2%) compared with that of Psychiatry faculty and practicing physicians (Ps < .0001). Racial/ethnic representation did not differ significantly compared with subspecialty fellows; however, the addiction subspecialty contained the least URM and female diversity. Historical trends indicated the proportion of female faculty (0.9%/yr) increased nearly 1.5 times faster than that of female trainees (0.6%/year). Conversely, the proportion of URM residents (0.26%/year) increased over 4 times faster than that of URM faculty (0.06%/year), with black faculty actually decreasing in proportion., Conclusions: Female and URM representation within the psychiatry physician workforce is significantly lower than US population demographics; however, trends indicate diminishing underrepresentation. While psychiatry residency remains more diverse than other specialties, specific trends identify poor minority representation among psychiatry faculty and fellows as areas needing attention.

Objectives: This study assessed historical and current gender, racial, and ethnic diversity trends within US pathology graduate medical education (GME) and the pathologist workforce., Methods: Data from online, publicly available sources were assessed for significant differences in racial, ethnic, and sex distribution in pathology trainees, as well as pathologists in practice or on faculty, separately compared with the US population and then each other using binomial tests., Results: Since 1995, female pathology resident representation has been increasing at a rate of 0.45% per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.61; P < .01), with pathology now having significantly more females (49.8%) compared to the total GME pool (45.4%; P < .0001). In contrast, there was no significant trend in the rate of change per year in black or American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AI/AN/NH/PI) resident representation (P = .04 and .02). Since 1995, underrepresented minority (URM) faculty representation has increased by 0.03% per year (95% CI, 0.024-0.036; P < .01), with 7.6% URM faculty in 2018 (5.2% Hispanic, 2.2% black, 0.2% AI/AN/NH/PI)., Conclusions: This assessment of pathology trainee and physician workforce diversity highlights significant improvements in achieving trainee gender parity. However, there are persistent disparities in URM representation, with significant underrepresentation of URM pathologists compared with residents., (© American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background/Objective : To identify factors associated with underrepresentation of women in the largest medical specialties. Methods : The authors obtained specialty-specific data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, National Residency Match Program and Journal of the American Medical Association Graduate Medical Education Supplement from 2014 on the gender of trainees and faculty members, residency program director (PD)-rated importance of interview selection and rank list formation criteria, and characteristics of matched NRMP participants. They used linear regression to evaluate whether factors were associated with representation of female trainees in the 18 largest specialties that participated in the NRMP. They hypothesized that factors representing lower student exposure or higher research requirements would be associated with lower representation of women. Results : In 2014, representation of women as trainees ranged from 13.7% in Orthopedic Surgery to 82.5% in OB/Gyn. On multivariable analysis, the factors associated with specialties having lower percentages of female trainees were: not being part of the third year core (slope = 0.141, p = 0.002), having lower specialty mean step 1 scores (slope = 0.007, p = 0.017), and having lower percentages of female faculty members. For each 1% increase in female faculty, the percentage of female trainees increased by 1.45% (p < 0.001). Conclusions : Two exposure-related factors, percentage of female faculty members and being part of the third year core, were associated with underrepresentation of women as trainees. Future research could help examine whether these are causal associations. Medical schools and training specialties should investigate whether strategies to enhance mentorship and increase exposure to non-core specialties will increase the proportion of women in fields in which they are underrepresented.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify potential barriers to building a diverse workforce in radiology and radiation oncology by conducting a national survey of physicians in these fields and studying their reported career experiences., Methods: An electronic survey of ACR members (February 27, 2018, to April 26, 2018) was conducted in which physicians' attitudes about their work environment, relationships, and culture were queried. The aim was to determine if responses differed by gender or race/ethnicity. In total, 900 invitations were issued; women were oversampled with the goal of equal representation. Descriptive summaries (proportions of yes or no responses) were calculated per item, per subgroup of interest. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant associations between gender- and item-specific responses; it was not used in the race/ethnicity analysis because of the small sizes of many subgroups., Results: The response rate was 51.2% (461 of 900). In total, 51.0% of respondents identified as women (235 of 461); the 9.5% (44 of 461) who identified as black or African American, Hispanic, or American Indian or Alaska Native were considered underrepresented minorities. Respondents' mean age was 40.2 ± 10.4 years. Subgroups varied most in their reporting of unfair or disrespectful treatment. Women were significantly more likely than men to report such treatment attributable to gender (50.6% versus 5.4%; odds ratio, 18.00; 95% confidence interval, 9.29-34.86; P < .001), and 27.9% of underrepresented minorities compared with 2.6% of white non-Hispanic respondents reported such treatment attributable to race/ethnicity., Conclusions: Women and underrepresented minorities disproportionately experience unfair or disrespectful treatment in the workplace. Addressing this problem is likely to be critically important for improving workforce diversity., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We evaluated patterns of event reporting across five clinical locations within an academic radiation oncology department, with the goal of better understanding variability across sites., Methods and Materials: We analyzed 1,351 events reported to a departmental incident learning system over 1 calendar year across the five locations with respect to volume of events, event type, process map location of origin and detection, and event reporter., Results: We found marked variability in reporting patterns, including reporting rate, event type, event severity, event location of origin and detection within the departmental process map, and discipline of event reporters. These differences relate both to variability in process and workflow (reflected by frequency of specific workflow events at each site) and in reporting culture (reflected by volume or rate of event reporting, and discipline of event reporter)., Conclusions: These data highlight the variability in reporting culture even within a single department, and therefore the need to tailor and individualize safety and quality programs to the unique clinical site, with the long-term goal of achieving a common culture of safety while supporting unique processes at individual locations. This work also raises concern about extrapolating single-institution incident learning system results without understanding the unique workflow and culture of clinical sites., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Although the available pool of qualified underrepresented minority and women medical school graduates has expanded in recent decades, their representation in the radiological professions has improved only marginally. Recognizing this deficit in diversity, many professional medical societies, including the ACR, have incorporated these values as core elements of their missions and instituted programs that address previously identified barriers to a more diverse workforce. These barriers include insufficient exposure of underrepresented minorities and women to radiology and radiation oncology; misperception of these specialties as non-patient care and not community service; unconscious bias; and delayed preparation of candidates to compete successfully for residency positions. Critical success factors in expanding diversity and inclusion are well identified both outside and within the radiological professions; these are reviewed in the current communication. Radiology leaders are positioned to lead the profession in expanding the diversity and improving the inclusiveness of our professional workforce in service to an increasingly diverse society and patient population., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the United States interventional radiology (IR) academic physician workforce diversity and comparative specialties., Methods: Public registries were used to assess demographic differences among 2012 IR faculty and fellows, diagnostic radiology (DR) faculty and residents, DR subspecialty fellows (pediatric, abdominal, neuroradiology, and musculoskeletal), vascular surgery and interventional cardiology trainees, and 2010 US medical school graduates and US Census using binomial tests with .001 significance level (Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons). Significant trends in IR physician representation were evaluated from 1992 to 2012., Results: Women (15.4%), blacks (2.0%), and Hispanics (6.2%) were significantly underrepresented as IR fellows compared with the US population. Women were underrepresented as IR (7.3%) versus DR (27.8%) faculty and IR fellows (15.4%) versus medical school graduates (48.3%), DR residents (27.8%), pediatric radiology fellows (49.4%), and vascular surgery trainees (27.7%) (all P < .001). IR ranked last in female representation among radiologic subspecialty fellows. Blacks (1.8%, 2.1%, respectively, for IR faculty and fellows); Hispanics (1.8%, 6.2%); and combined American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (1.8%, 0) showed no significant differences in representation as IR fellows compared with IR faculty, DR residents, other DR fellows, or interventional cardiology or vascular surgery trainees. Over 20 years, there was no significant increase in female or black representation as IR fellows or faculty., Conclusions: Women, blacks, and Hispanics are underrepresented in the IR academic physician workforce relative to the US population. Given prevalent health care disparities and an increasingly diverse society, research and training efforts should address IR physician workforce diversity., (Copyright © 2016 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To learn where pediatric physical therapists in the United States are in the process of knowledge translation of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS)., Methods: Links to an online survey were distributed electronically., Results: All 283 respondents reported hearing about the GMFCS, 95% agreed it was useful, 81% reported they were confident in their ability to use it, 77% reported they use it, and 42% reported they use it consistently. Therapists primarily used the GMFCS to predict gross motor function, set realistic goals, and anticipate need for assistive technology. The American Physical Therapy Association Section on Pediatrics members were more likely than nonmembers to agree the GMFCS is useful, they are able to use it, that they use it, and that they use it consistently., Conclusions: The majority of therapists responding use the GMFCS, but not consistently., Video Abstract: For more insights from the authors, see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at http://links.lww.com/PPT/A91.

Purpose: A significant physician shortage has been projected to occur by 2025, and demand for oncologists is expected to outpace supply to an even greater degree. In response to this, many have called to increase the number of radiation oncology residency positions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) data for the number of residency positions between 2004 and 2015 as well as the number and caliber of applicants for those positions and to compare radiation oncology to all residency specialties., Methods: NRMP data for all specialties participating in the match, including radiation oncology, were assessed over time examining the number of programs participating in the match, the number of positions offered, and the ratio of applicants to positions in the match from 2004 to 2015., Results: From 2004 to 2015, the number of total programs participating in the match has increased by 26.7%, compared to the increase of 28.6% in the number of radiation oncology programs from during the same time period. The total number of positions offered in the match increased by 53.4%, whereas radiation oncology positions increased by 56.3%, during the same time period. The ratio of applicants (defined as those selecting a specialty as their first or only choice) to positions for all specialties has fluctuated over this time period and has gone from 1.21 to 1.15, whereas radiation oncology experienced a decrease from 1.45 to 1.14., Conclusions: NRMP data suggest that senior medical student applications to radiation oncology are decreasing compared to those of other specialties. If we hope to continue to attract the best and brightest to enter our field, we must continue to support early exposure to radiation oncology, positive educational experiences, and dedicated mentorship to interested medical students., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the medical oncology (MO) physician workforce diversity by race, Hispanic ethnicity, and sex, with attention to trainees., Methods: Public registries were used to assess 2010 differences among MO practicing physicians, academic faculty, and fellows; internal medicine (IM) residents; and the US population, using binomial tests with P < .001 significance adjusting for multiple comparisons. Significant changes in fellow representation from 1986 to 2011 were assessed., Results: Female representation as MO fellows (45.0%) was significantly increased compared with faculty (22.4%) and practicing physicians (27.4%); was no different than IM residents (44.7%, P = .853); and increased significantly, by 1.0% per year. Women were significantly underrepresented as practicing physicians, faculty, and fellows compared with the US population (50.8%). Traditionally underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM) were significantly underrepresented as practicing physicians (7.8%), faculty (5.7%), and fellows (10.9%), versus US population (30.0%). Hispanic MO fellows (7.5%) were increased compared with faculty (3.9%) and practicing physicians (4.1%); Black fellows (3.1%) were no different than faculty (1.8%, P = .0283) or practicing physicians (3.5%, P = .443). When comparing MO fellows versus IM residents, there were no differences for American Indians/Alaska Natives/Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (0.3%, 0.6%, respectively, P = .137) and Hispanics (7.5%, 8.7%, P = .139), unlike Blacks (3.1%, 5.6%, P < .001). There has been no significant change in URM representation, with negligible changes every 5 years for American Indians/Alaska Natives/Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (-0.1%), Blacks (-0.3%), and Hispanics (0.3%)., Conclusions: Female fellow representation increased 1% per year over the quarter century indicating historical gains, whereas URM diversity remains unchanged. For Blacks alone, representation as MO fellows is decreased compared with IM residents, suggesting greater disparity in MO training., (Copyright © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To assess the diversity of the U.S. diagnostic radiology physician workforce by race, Hispanic ethnicity, and sex in the context of the available pipeline of medical students., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board evaluation and exemption were granted for the study, as primary data were obtained from publicly available registry sources, with no identifiable private or protected information. Publicly available American Medical Association, American Association of Medical Colleges, and U.S. census registries were used to assess differences for 2010 among diagnostic radiology practicing physicians, academic faculty, residents, subspecialty trainees, residency applicants, medical school graduates, and U.S. population by using binomial tests; with adjustment for multiple comparisons among different groups, differences with P < .001 were considered significant. Significant differences in diagnostic radiology resident representation were evaluated for academic years 2003-2004 to 2010-2011 and for 2010, compared among the 20 largest residency training programs., Results: Females and traditionally underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM)-blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AI/AN/NH/PI)-are underrepresented as practicing physicians (23.5% and 6.5%, respectively), faculty (26.1%, 5.9%), and diagnostic radiology residents (27.8%, 8.3%), compared with the U.S. population (50.8%, 30.0%) (all P < .001). Although they are increased in percentage as residents compared with practicing physicians, females and URMs remain underrepresented at the resident trainee level, compared with their proportions as medical school graduates (48.3%, 15.3%, respectively). During the past 8 years, there was no significant increase in female or URM resident (all P > .01) representation, suggesting no dramatic change in future representation as practicing physicians. Moreover, diagnostic radiology ranks 17th in female and 20th in URM representation among the 20 largest residency training specialties., Conclusion: Females and URM remain underrepresented in the diagnostic radiology physician workforce despite an available medical student pipeline. Given prevalent health care disparities and an increasingly diverse society, future research and training efforts should address increasing resident diversity with program directors and department chairs., (© RSNA, 2013.)

Purpose: To assess the current diversity of the US radiation oncology (RO) physician workforce by race, ethnicity, and sex., Methods and Materials: Publicly available American Medical Association, American Association of Medical Colleges, and US census registries were used to assess differences by race, ethnicity, and sex for 2010 among RO practicing physicians, academic faculty, residents, and residency applicants. RO resident diversity was compared to medical school graduates and medical oncology (MO) fellows. Significant differences in diversity of RO residents by race, ethnicity, and sex were evaluated between 2003 and 2010 academic years., Results: Females and traditionally underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM), blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders are underrepresented as RO residents (33.3% and 6.9%, respectively), faculty (23.8%, 8.1%), and practicing physicians (25.5%, 7.2%) levels compared with the US population (50.8%, 30.0%; P<.01). Although females and URMs remain underrepresented at the resident trainee level compared with their proportions as medical school graduates (48.3%, 15.6%) and MO fellows (45.0%, 10.8%; P<.01), females are significantly increased in proportion as RO residents compared with RO practicing physicians (P<.01), whereas representation of individual URM groups as RO residents is no different than current practicing physicians. There is no trend toward increased diversification for female or URM trainees over 8 years, suggesting underrepresentation is not diminishing., Conclusions: Females and URM are underrepresented in the RO physician workforce. Given existing cancer disparities, further research and efforts are needed to ensure that the field is equipped to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse society., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)