Oncology for medical students: a European School of Oncology contribution to undergraduate cancer education.

Department of Medical Oncology, Medical School, University of Ioannina, 451 10 Ioannina, Greece.
Cancer Treatment Reviews (Impact Factor: 6.47). 09/2007; 33(5):419-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2007.02.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Worldwide undergraduate cancer medicine is taught in a non-unanimous manner. There are frequent overlaps, omissions and discrepancies in the curricula of different medical schools concerning oncology teaching. Various attempts for possible changes and improvements have been made. Several extra-curriculum teaching programmes have been developed in academic European settings in collaboration with other scientific bodies. In this paper, we are analyzing the educational results from 115 medical students--mostly Europeans--who participated in three Oncology Summer Courses (2004, 2005, 2006) organized by European School of Oncology in collaboration with the University of Ioannina.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most medical schools in Spain (80%) offer undergraduate training in oncology. This education is highly variable in terms of content (theory and practical training), number of credits, and the medical specialty and departmental affiliation of the professors. Much of this variability is due to university traditions in the configuration of credits and programmes, and also to the structure of the hospital-based practical training. Undergraduate medical students deserve a more coherent and modern approach to education with a strong emphasis on clinical practice. Oncology is an interdisciplinary science that requires the input of professors from multiple specialties to provide the primary body of knowledge and skills needed to obtain both a theoretical and clinical understanding of cancer. Clinical skills should be a key focus due to their importance in the current model of integrated medical management and care. Clinical radiation oncology is a traditional and comprehensive hospital-based platform for undergraduate education in oncology. In Spain, a significant number (n = 80) of radiation oncology specialists have a contractual relationship to teach university courses. Most Spanish universities (80%) have a radiation oncologist on staff, some of whom are department chairs and many others are full professors who have been hired and promoted under competitive conditions of evaluation as established by the National Agency for Quality Evaluation. The Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) has identified new opportunities to improve undergraduate education in oncology. In this article, we discuss proposals related to theoretical (20 items) and practical clinical training (9 items). We also describe the SEOR University Forum, which is an initiative to develop a strategic plan to implement and organize cancer education at the undergraduate level in an interdisciplinary teaching spirit and with a strong contribution from radiation oncologists.
    Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy 11/2013; 18(6):405–413.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The oncology education framework currently in use in Canadian medical training programs is unknown, and the needs of learners have not been fully assessed to determine whether they are adequately prepared to manage patients with cancer. To assess the oncology education framework currently in use at Canadian medical schools and residency training programs for family (fm) and internal medicine (im), and to evaluate opinions about the content and utility of standard oncology education objectives, a Web survey was designed and sent to educators and learners. The survey recipients included undergraduate medical education curriculum committee members (umeccms), directors of fm and im programs, oncologists, medical students, and fm and im residents. Survey responses were received from 677 educators and learners. Oncology education was felt to be inadequate in their respective programs by 58% of umeccms, 57% of fm program directors, and 50% of im program directors. For learners, oncology education was thought to be inadequate by 67% of medical students, 86% of fm residents, and 63% of im residents. When comparing teaching of medical subspecialty-related diseases, all groups agreed that their trainees were least prepared to manage patients with cancer. A standard set of oncology objectives was thought to be possibly or definitely useful for undergraduate learners by 59% of respondents overall and by 61% of postgraduate learners. Oncology education in Canadian undergraduate and postgraduate fm and im training programs are currently thought to be inadequate by a majority of educators and learners. Developing a standard set of oncology objectives might address the needs of learners.
    Current Oncology 02/2014; 21(1):e75-88. · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: academic year) was based on previous submission of C.V. and a letter of motivation describing their goals and reasons for choosing a summer training course in oncology. A total of 23 students attended the course (9 students in the fourth year, 11 students in the fifth year and 3 students in the sixth year) with a predominance of female students (74%). The topics presented covered basic knowledge regarding cancer and its biology; world epidemiology of the disease with a focus on Egypt's epidemiological data; principles of cancer management, and an overview of the most common malignancies. The clinical rounds focused on interaction of the students with patients; examining the various symptoms; side effects of treatment and highlighting the special care and health awareness issues surrounding cancer patients. At the end of the 2-week course; the students' knowledge gained was evaluated, besides completing a “post-course evaluation questionnaire” to assess the course outcome in terms of: how their goals were achieved, evaluation of the course's instructors, course educational materials, institutional facilities and how they would improve the course.
    Journal of Cancer Education 03/2011; 26(3):547-8. · 0.88 Impact Factor