Background There are unique challenges to parenting in residency and there is limited data to guide policy regarding lactation facilities and support for female physicians-in-training. We aimed to assess issues surrounding breast-feeding during graduate medical training for current residents or recent graduates from United States (US) residency programs. Methods A national cross-sectional survey was sent to current and recently graduated (2017 and later) female residents in June 2020. This questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics Survey tool and was open to each participating woman’s organization for 4 weeks. Summary statistics were used to describe characteristics of all respondents and free-text responses were reviewed to identify common themes regarding avenues for improvement. Results Three hundred twelve women responded to the survey, representing a 15.6% response rate. The median duration of providing breastmilk was 9 months (IQR 6–12). 21% of residents reported access to usable lactation rooms within their training hospital, in which 12% reported a computer was present. 60% of lactating residents reported not having a place to store breast milk. 73% reported residency limited their ability to lactate, and 37% stopped prior to their desired goal. 40% reported their faculty and/or co-residents made them feel guilty for their decision to breastfeed, and 56% reported their difficulties with breastfeeding during residency impacted their mental health. Conclusion Residents who become mothers during training face significant obstacles to meeting their breastfeeding/pumping needs and goals. With these barriers defined, informed policy change can be instituted to improve the lactation experience for physicians-in-training.

ImportanceFemale oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers, with many later experiencing fertility issues when starting a family. Physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed during training. Attitudes among female oncologists regarding family planning are unknown.ObjectivesTo understand barriers to family planning as well as the association of fertility treatment with career decisions and to assess experiences of pregnancy-based discrimination among female oncologists.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this survey study, a novel 39-item questionnaire was distributed to US female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels. Questions regarding factors associated with family planning, maternity leave, and discrimination were included.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe distribution of survey responses was compared by oncology subspecialty. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine independent variables for discrimination experienced during maternity leave.ResultsResponses were collected from 1004 female oncologists. Most respondents (847 [84.4%]) were married, and 713 (71.0%) were currently working full-time. A total of 351 oncologists (35.0%) worked in radiation oncology, 344 (34.3%) in medical oncology, 186 (18.4%) in surgical oncology, and 91 (9.1%) in pediatric oncology. A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training, and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1 to 5 as an attending physician. Almost all respondents (951 [94.7%]) stated that their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family. Having a supportive partner was the most commonly cited positive association with family planning (802 [79.9%]), while long work hours and heavy workload (669 [66.6%]) were the most common negative factors. One-third (318 [31.7%]) had miscarried, and 315 (31.4%) reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment; 660 (65.7%) thought fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency. One-third (312 [31.1%]) reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and 332 (33.1%) stated they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave. On multivariable logistic regression, having more than 1 child was associated with increased likelihood of experiencing discrimination during maternity leave (2 children: odds ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.10-2.39]; P = .02; ≥3 children: odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.14-2.95; P = .01).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of female oncologists, 1 in 3 reported experiencing infertility and 1 in 3 stated they experienced discrimination during pregnancy and/or for taking maternity leave. Systemic changes are necessary to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field.

Purpose: To evaluate predictors of cardiac events in esophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (NA CRT) compared with surgery alone. Methods and materials: We retrospectively identified patients treated for esophageal cancer between 2006 and 2016. 123 patients were identified; 70 were treated with surgery alone, and 53 were treated with NA CRT. Cardiac events were scored based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v4.03), and dosimetric data was compiled for all patients who received radiation. Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analyses were performed to identify predictors of cardiac events. A competing risk of death regression was performed to model cumulative incidence of cardiac events. Results: The overall rates of grade ≥3 cardiac events were 24.5% in the NA CRT group versus 10% in the surgery group (p = 0.04). On MVA, use of NA CRT (p < 0.01, HR 3.45, 95% CI 1.35-9.09) predicted for grade ≥3 cardiac events, though no dosimetric variable predicted for grade ≥3 cardiac events or overall survival. On MVA, NA CRT predicted for pericardial effusions of any grade (p < 0.01, HR 3.70, 95% CI 1.67-8.33). The V45 Gy was the most significant predictor of pericardial effusions (p = 0.012, HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06) Conclusions: NA CRT significantly increased the rate of grade ≥3 cardiac events compared with patients treated with surgery alone. While no dosimetric parameter predicted for grade ≥3 cardiac events or survival, the V45 Gy predicted for pericardial effusions.

IMPORTANCEWomen outnumber men in US medical school enrollment, but they represent less than 40% of academic oncology faculty. OBJECTIVE To identify the key factors associated with female oncologists' decision to pursue academic or nonacademic oncology practice and to characterize their perceptions about their current career. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional survey study was distributed through email and social media to female physicians in academic and nonacademic oncology practice in the United States. The survey was open for 3 months, from August 1 to October 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES No single primary study outcome was established because of the cross-sectional nature of the survey. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed using t tests for continuous variables and χ 2 tests for categorical variables. RESULTS Among the 667 female respondents, 422 (63.2%) identified as academic oncologists and 245 (36.8%) identified as nonacademic oncologists. Approximately 25% of respondents reported that their spouse or partner (156 [23.5%]) and/or family (176 [26.4%]) extremely or moderately affected their decision to pursue academic practice. Academic oncologists perceived the biggest sacrifice of pursuing academics to be time with loved ones (181 [42.9%]). Nonacademic oncologists perceived the biggest sacrifice of pursuing academics to be pressure for academic promotion ( 102[41.6%]). Respondents had different perceptions of how their gender affected their ability to obtain a chosen job, with 116 academic oncologists (27.6%) and 101 nonacademic oncologists (41.2%) reporting a positive or somewhat positive impact (P = .001). More than half of the women surveyed (54.6% academic oncologists [230]; 50.6% nonacademic oncologists [123]; P = .61) believed they were less likely to be promoted compared with male colleagues. Academic and nonacademic oncologists reported rarely or never having a sense of belonging in their work environment (33 [7.9%] and 5 [2.0%]; P < .001). Most respondents reported that they would choose the same career path again (301 academic oncologists [71.3%]; 168 nonacademic oncologists [68.6%]); however, 92 academic oncologists (21.9%) reported they were likely to pursue a career outside of academic oncology in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis survey study found that a spouse or partner and/or family were factors in the career choice of both academic and nonacademic oncologists and that female gender was largely perceived to adversely affect job promotion. Given that more than 20% of female academic oncologists were considering leaving academia, gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed.

No abstract