A new article published in Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology highlights an urgent issue for radiation oncology in Europe: the need for stronger education, clearer professional recognition, and better workforce planning for radiation therapists.
The paper, “Workforce planning, staffing and education requirements for radiation therapists in the European Union as part of the EU-REST project,” was developed within the EU-REST project, a European initiative focused on workforce availability, education, staffing, and safety in medical applications of radiation.
The authors emphasize a central message: radiation therapists are core members of the radiation oncology team, and treatment cannot be delivered safely or effectively without them.
Why This Matters
Radiation therapy is becoming more complex.
Modern radiotherapy requires image guidance, adaptive workflows, motion management, stereotactic techniques, brachytherapy support, treatment planning, quality assurance, risk management, patient communication, and increasing interaction with artificial intelligence and automation.
Despite this, the education and workforce planning for radiation therapists across the European Union remain inconsistent. In some countries, radiation therapy education is still grouped with diagnostic radiography or nuclear medicine, with limited radiation therapy-specific content.
This creates a mismatch between what RTTs are expected to do in modern clinical practice and how they are educated, recognized, and counted in workforce systems.
What the EU-REST Project Did
The EU-REST project collected data on workforce availability, education, training, and staffing in medical applications of radiation across the European Union.
The project involved several major European organizations, including ESTRO, ESR, EFRS, EANM, and EFOMP. The goal was to help define policy guidelines for education, training, and workforce planning standards.
For radiation therapists specifically, the project used survey methodology, a pre-survey to identify relevant authorities, and a literature review focused on RTT education and workforce planning.
However, the survey results themselves revealed one of the major problems: only a small number of responses related exclusively to radiation therapists, and the available data were limited.
A Major Data Gap
Only 7% of survey responses referred exclusively to radiation therapists, coming from 7 countries. Because radiation therapists are not consistently separated from radiographers in European data systems, it was not possible to reliably determine the specific number of RTTs across the EU.
This lack of clear professional separation makes workforce planning very difficult.
The article notes that the reported number of radiation therapists and radiographers per million inhabitants varied widely across countries, but the specific RTT workforce could not be extracted with confidence.
This is more than a technical data problem. If a workforce is not clearly counted, it becomes harder to plan staffing, education capacity, and future service delivery.
Education and Training Concerns
The project found major variation in radiation therapist education across the EU.
Reported education duration ranged from 0 to 4 years. Only a small number of programs offered dedicated radiation therapy degrees, while most were shared with other disciplines and included minimal radiation therapy-specific content.
Clinical practice education ranged from 0% to 30%.
The authors argue that this is not sufficient for modern radiotherapy practice. Radiation therapists need education that prepares them to work safely and independently in the clinic upon graduation, without requiring prolonged additional training just to meet baseline competency.
Recommended Education Standards
The article recommends that radiation therapist education should be dedicated to radiation therapy and should last 3 years, equivalent to 180 ECTS credits.
It should include at least 20% to 30% clinical training across a range of clinical settings. Clinical education should be led by radiation therapists, and formal competency assessment should be documented.
The authors also stress that academic and clinical programs should be led by radiation therapists.
A particularly important point is radiation protection education. The article argues that radiation protection in radiation therapy must be considered separately from diagnostic imaging because the clinical context, dose levels, risks, and safety requirements are very different.
Why Radiation Protection Needs to Be RTT Specific
Radiation therapy involves much higher doses than diagnostic imaging and is usually delivered across a defined course of treatment. Errors in treatment preparation or delivery can have major clinical consequences for patients.
The authors note that radiation protection education for RTTs should not be generic. It must include the biological and physical impact of therapeutic radiation, dose constraints to organs at risk, treatment accuracy, and patient safety.
In modern radiation oncology, skills training alone is not enough. RTTs need deep understanding of why treatments are planned and delivered in specific ways, and how small errors can affect clinical outcomes.
Workforce Planning Needs to Change
The paper also argues that RTT staffing cannot be reduced to a simple number of radiation therapists per linear accelerator.
Traditional staffing models do not fully capture the modern RTT role. Radiation therapists may work across treatment units, simulation, treatment planning, brachytherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, research, education, management, quality assurance, risk management, and advanced practice roles.
Because of this, the authors recommend activity-based workforce modelling.
This type of model is more flexible and can reflect the real work being done in individual departments, including clinical activity, continuing professional development, leave, maintenance time, equipment replacement, evolving roles, and future service expansion.
Key Workforce Principles
The article highlights several important staffing principles.
A radiation therapist should never work alone during treatment delivery. Staffing models should account for national legislation, working hours, shift systems, full-time and part-time staff, sick leave, parental leave, holidays, downtime, and equipment maintenance.
Future planning should also account for retirements, attrition, new technologies, and expanding RTT responsibilities.
This is important not only for safety, but also for education planning. If countries do not know how many RTTs they will need in the future, education programs cannot plan student intake appropriately.
Clinical and Policy Takeaway
The main message of this article is clear: radiation therapists need dedicated recognition, dedicated education, and dedicated workforce planning.
RTTs are not interchangeable with diagnostic imaging professionals. Their role is specific to radiation therapy and directly linked to patient safety, treatment accuracy, and quality of care.
The authors call for European legislation and policy to better reflect current and future radiation therapy practice. This includes separating RTT education and radiation protection requirements from other medical radiation professions.
For radiation oncology departments, the message is also practical. Safe, modern radiotherapy requires a workforce model that reflects what RTTs actually do, not only how many linear accelerators a department has.
Final Message
Radiation therapists are essential to radiation oncology, yet their education, training, and workforce planning remain uneven across Europe.
This EU-REST project article provides a timely call for action: define RTTs clearly, educate them specifically, plan their workforce intelligently, and recognize their role as central to safe and high-quality cancer treatment.
As cancer incidence rises and radiotherapy becomes more technically demanding, RTT workforce planning is no longer an administrative detail. It is a patient safety priority.
Read full article.