Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42169039›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2026

Duke Cancer Care Experience: a longitudinal, multidisciplinary oncology curriculum for medical students.

Anagh Kulkarni, Zachary Creech, Khalid Tejan-Sie, Myles Nickolich, Sandro Pinheiro de Oliveira, Matthew Labriola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anagh Kulkarni *Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Zachary Creech *Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Khalid Tejan-SieDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Myles NickolichPenn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA.
Sandro Pinheiro de OliveiraDepartment of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Matthew LabriolaDuke Cancer Institute, Department of Medicine, Duke University, 20 Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27703, USA. matthew.labriola@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer prevalence continues to rise in the United States with a projected shortage of oncologists in the workforce. Despite this need, medical schools often lack oncology-focused education in their curriculum. Duke's Cancer Care Experience (CCE) is a multi-disciplinary elective designed to meet the growing demand for highly competent, compassionate, and diverse physicians of all medical specialties who are aware of the unique needs of patients diagnosed with cancer. CCE integrates principles of adult learning theory to increase learner engagement and prioritize knowledge retention of cancer care principles.

methodsThis single-group pre-post educational evaluation assessed first-year medical students enrolled in the Cancer Care Experience (CCE) using pre- and post-program electronic surveys administered via Qualtrics. Students in each cohort participated in workshops, lectures, case-based learning exercises, and longitudinal clinical shadowing experiences. Pre- and post-program surveys were administered to students, assessing career interests and self-efficacy within various aspects of oncology-related competencies, and completed an abbreviated IRI-derived empathy measure adapted from the AAMC Y2Q/GQ format. Participation was voluntary, and responses were anonymized. Data was collected from 2023-2025 to assess impacts over time.

resultsAmong enrolled students, 36/40 (90%) in 2023 and 39/40 (98%) in 2024 completed both pre- and post-program surveys. Post-program mean comfort ratings were higher than pre-program ratings across all 15 surveyed cancer care topics in both cohorts, with absolute increases ranging from 15.90 to 41.95 points in 2023 and 11.03 to 34.06 points in 2024. On post-program evaluation, students rated the course highly for clerkship preparation, clinical shadowing, and breakout sessions, and many reported that the program influenced how they approached patients and their anticipated career choice. In a 2025 follow-up survey, 50.7% (36/71) of respondents reported anticipating a career in oncology, 74.6% (53/71) said CCE had influenced their thinking about career choice, and 98.6% (70/71) said they would recommend the course to other students.

conclusionsParticipation in the CCE was associated with higher post-program self-reported confidence across multiple evaluated cancer care domains. Respondents noted that the course played a role in shaping their understanding of oncology, and in some cases, their career interest. Although these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and descriptive given the single-group design and self-reported outcomes, the results still suggest that this model may serve as a scalable framework for integrating oncology education into pre-clinical medical curricula.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateMedical OncologyNeoplasmsStudents, MedicalAdultCareer ChoiceClinical CompetenceEmpathyFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleEmpathy DevelopmentMedical School CurriculumMultidisciplinary Cancer CareOncology Education

Identifiers

PMID42169039
PMCPMC13366717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.