Key result
Over ~70% of surveyed healthcare professionals lack structured institutional cardio-oncology training opportunities.
Why the study?
Despite the clinical relevance of cardio-oncology, structured education remains limited across medical curricula internationally.
Cross-Sectional (n=398)
Yes
There is a significant unmet need for structured and harmonised training in cardio-oncology among healthcare professionals, highlighting a critical gap in current medical education.
Limited cardio-oncology exposure in medical school persists; leaves open optimal curriculum integration by societies.
Aims Cardio-oncology has emerged as a rapidly growing discipline of cardiology. Despite its clinical relevance, structured education remains limited across medical curricula. The Cardio-Oncologists Of tomorrow Leaders (COOL) group of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Council of Cardio-Oncology conducted an international survey to assess the current state of cardio-oncology training opportunities and perceived needs among healthcare professionals. Methods and results An anonymized, web-based survey was distributed to cardiologists, cardiology residents and other healthcare professionals treating patients with cancer. A total of 398 respondents completed this survey (mean age 44±12 years; 60% female; 73% board-certified cardiologists). Only 10% reported exposure to cardio-oncology during medical school, and 17% during residency. The majority (>70%) indicated no structured cardio-oncology training opportunities at their institution, with national cardio-oncology programmes available to only 19% of them. Respondents identified the ESC and national cardiac societies (72%) as main stakeholders responsible for developing educational initiatives. Most participants preferred fellowships at centers of excellence (56%), webinars (53%) and university certifications (51%) as learning formats. A strong consensus (over 85%) emerged that all general cardiologists should be familiar with key cardio-oncology principles, including diagnosis and risk-stratification of cardiotoxicity. Responses differed across respondents’ training status, work setting (academic vs. non-academic) and country. Conclusions In parallel with the general growth of the field, there is increasing need of structured and harmonised training in cardio-oncology, including during medical education. Interpretation of results is however, limited by possible selection bias and the absence of a defined denominator, which precluded calculation of response rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Camilli et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardio-oncology education (n=398). Cardio-oncology training and educational opportunities was evaluated on Current state of cardio-oncology training opportunities and perceived needs. An international survey of 398 healthcare professionals revealed that over 70% have no structured cardio-oncology training opportunities at their institution.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: