Oncology Education in Undergraduate Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Expectations and Perceptions Between First- and Sixth-Year Cohorts

Cancer is projected to become the leading cause of death in Brazil within the next decade. Despite this growing burden, oncology education remains inconsistently structured in undergraduate medical curricula, potentially limiting physicians’ preparedness for cancer care. To compare expectations and perceptions of oncology education between independent cohorts of first- and sixth-year medical students and to assess whether academic stage is independently associated with perceived preparedness and interest in oncology careers. A cross-sectional study was conducted using structured questionnaires administered to first-year (n = 152) and sixth-year medical students (n = 100) at a Brazilian institution. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), controlling for sex and family history of cancer. Sensitivity analyses were performed using ordinal regression, including all response categories. First-year students reported higher expected preparedness for oncology training, whereas sixth-year students reported lower self-perceived preparedness based on their educational experiences (80.9% vs. 68.0%; p < 0.001). Interest in oncology careers was also higher among first-year students (24.3% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.008). In adjusted analyses, academic stage remained independently associated with perceived preparedness (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.51–9.73; p = 0.005) and career interest (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21–5.34; p = 0.014). First-year students were also more likely to rate key treatment modalities, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy, as essential components of undergraduate training. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results. Differences between cohorts were observed in expected and self-perceived preparedness, as well as in the perceived importance of oncology-related domains. These findings should be interpreted as reflecting differences in expectations and perceptions rather than changes over time or training.