Kamel Debbi, Pierre Loap, Anne Laprie, Gilles Créhange, Laurent Zelek, Florence Huguet, Rosine Guimbaud, Yazid Belkacemi
Respiratory physicians in China demonstrate inconsistent knowledge and practice regarding EA, with gaps in phenotyping, eosinophil monitoring, comorbidity attention, and targeted therapy selection. The strong consensus for guideline development highlights the need for standardized protocols to bridge these gaps.
France's national cross-specialty oncology training program (Transversal Specialized Training, FST) includes 6-month rotations in medical oncology and radiation oncology. For selected specialties, a mixed-stage pathway may replace the standard radiation oncology rotation with 3 months in radiation oncology plus 3 months in medical oncology or an oncology-certified parent-specialty service. We explored this alternative pathway's educational outcomes. We conducted an exploratory subgroup analysis of 19 residents who completed mixed-stage FST training within a nationwide FST evaluation cohort (n = 203). Outcomes included satisfaction across nine radiation oncology domains, pedagogical evaluations, organization preferences, perceived adequacy of a 3-month radiation oncology placement, and subsequent oncological engagement. Mixed-stage participants (mean age 30.5 ± 1.6 years; 10 males) were residents in urology (n = 7), dermatology (n = 5), hepato-gastroenterology (n = 3), endocrinology (n = 2), and pulmonology (n = 2). Most completed sequential training (16/19), which was also the preferred organization (17/19). Overall, six residents (31.6%) achieved high general satisfaction, defined as a composite score ≥ 7/10. Satisfaction varied substantially by specialty: both pulmonology residents achieved high satisfaction, whereas no hepato-gastroenterology resident did. Patient communication scored highest (6.47 ± 2.61), while clinical research training was lowest-rated (3.79 ± 2.27). High oncological engagement was reported by 8 of 19 residents. Mixed-stage radiation oncology training showed heterogeneous educational outcomes and variable implementation across specialties. Within the limits of this small exploratory analysis, these findings support prioritizing standardized 6-month radiation oncology rotations, or at minimum strictly auditable criteria when mixed-stage pathways are authorized.