ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2026
Characterizing the Clinical Role of Radiation Oncology Advanced Practice Providers Using Entrustable Professional Activities.
Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose/Objective: Advanced practice providers (APPs), including physician associates (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), are increasingly utilized in radiation oncology. However, radiation oncology-specific training for APPs is not standardized. This study elucidates the current role of US radiation oncology APPs by assessing clinical responsibilities. Methods: Radiation oncology APPs in the US were sent a survey examining demographics, training, practice structure, and clinical tasks using the framework of the 52 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) developed by the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG). Results: 37 PAs and 84 NPs participated. 53.7% practiced a different specialty previously. 63.6% had three or more APPs in the department, and 71.9% covered multiple physicians. 65.3% worked in a practice alongside radiation oncology residents, and 79.7% of these APPs worked directly with residents. 25.6% performed procedures. 95% completed follow-up/survivorship visits, 71% completed acute symptom visits, 65% completed ambulatory consults, 45% completed inpatient consults, and 38% completed on-treatment visits. 21.5% specialized in one disease site, 39.7% covered multiple disease sites, and 38.8% covered all disease sites. 22 of 52 ROECSG EPAs were performed by > 90% in some capacity. > 90% did not complete EPAs 15, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, and 46. Only 2.5% of APPs received formal radiation oncology training during APP education. Conclusions: APPs perform many ROECSG EPAs, primarily during follow-up/survivorship visits. However, job responsibilities vary widely across radiation oncology clinics. Further definition of the APP role is essential to meet the growing demands of cancer care, support the evolution of radiation oncology, and enhance patient care.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.