The first two PCAR classes are divided nearly equally between males (55%) and females (45%). Participants over 2 years include Asians (17%), Latinos (8%), African Americans (8%), and Caucasians (75%) (Table 1). The population of Arkansas is 79% Caucasian, 1.8% Asian, 16% Black or African American, and 8.3 % Latino [9]. Thus, the PCAR classes underrepresent African Americans and overrepresent Asian-Americans.

Table 1 PCAR participant demographics (12 participants accepted each year)

Survey results on the overall program as well as each major subcomponent of the program are summarized in Table 2. In the first year, 96% positive responses to general statements about the overall course such as follows: (1) the course was well organized; (2) overall, this was a good course; 3) I learned a lot by taking this course; 4) I enjoyed my research project; 5) I learned a lot from my research mentor and other team personnel; and 6) the different activities outside my research added to the experience.

Table 2 Summary of survey data from the first 2 years of PCAR program

The participants 100% agreed or strongly agreed with all statements except statement number 4 above where two respondents were neutral regarding whether they enjoyed their research project. Five of eight written comments were positive in the first year, for example, “I loved the PCAR program. I would recommend it to anyone. So many amazing opportunities and experiences! My favorite part of the program was the sim center visits. They were incredible, as was everything else in the program.” Another participant said, “This was an amazing experience. I am so glad I had the opportunity to participate. Thank you all so much.” There were three negative comments: one complained about the amount of work involved in the research project, another noting the poor integration of the entrepreneurship program (expanded on below), and a third liked the program but complained of all the “extra” work due to the other PCAR program elements. The “extra” work in this comment refers to UAMS classmates in the concurrently running HiR Program of the COM, which only requires a research project (i.e., no PCAR surveys, lectures, entrepreneurship program, etc.).

PCAR Increases Participant Knowledge of Cancer Research

PCAR students (2022) answered a series of retrospective pre/post questions on the exit survey to measure any changes in cancer research knowledge and likelihood to pursue cancer research as a result of their participation in PCAR. In Fig. 1 (n = 8), students reported a substantial increase in cancer research knowledge due to PCAR and a moderate increase in the likelihood of PCAR students going on to pursue cancer research. Notably, 100% of students reported that they either agree or strongly agree that they know a good deal about cancer research after PCAR (Fig. 1A, top panel). PCAR increased by one student, the number of students who are likely to pursue cancer research (Fig. 1A, bottom panel).

Fig. 1

A Retrospective pre- and post-course responses. The figure asks students retrospectively to compare their answer before going through the PCAR program to that after the program. Students were given the statement “I know a good deal about cancer research” (upper panel) and “I am likely to pursue cancer research as part of my career” (bottom panel). B Student ability to perform cancer research. The students responded to statements that probed their ability to do cancer research. C Second-year class evaluates the entrepreneurship portion of the course. Survey results pertaining to the entrepreneurship program incorporated into the PCAR summer research program

Further investigation of PCAR participant knowledge of how to perform scientific experiments to answer testable hypotheses revealed that students learned how to develop a hypothesis and test it, design and execute controlled experiments, critically analyze the results, and communicate their cancer research findings (Fig. 1B). All eight respondents reported strongly agreeing with each component (Fig. 1B). In 2022, when asked what the most valuable component of the course was, seven students answered more than one course component. Conversely, the least valuable part of the course was the lecture series (two students), Live from the Lab! (one student) but “only because I had to choose something. It was all truly fantastic.” Three others indicated that all parts of the course were valuable.

Live from the Lab!

Students made two presentations over the course of the summer. The initial presentation featured a description of the scientific problem, hypothesis, and plan to test the hypothesis. The second presentation featured experimental results. The students were positive about Live from the Lab! (Table 2). In the first year, a tongue in cheek survey statement was included: “The faculty moderator asked too many questions.” Most students responded that they disagreed, which was actually a positive response that the software counted as negative (Table 2, 2021). Written comments on the surveys from both years included “Great way to showcase our experience” and “Helpful for putting together the final poster.”

Cancer Lecture Series

The students liked the cancer lecture series and ranked each lecturer quite highly (Table 2). Positive comments included “As a visual learner, I really appreciate how Dr. X went through the PowerPoint and discussed the various points using the pictures.”

Cure Cancer Entrepreneurship Program

Overall, the students were positive about the entrepreneurship program (Table 2). During the first year, this was the only program component to receive negative comments. Three separate comments indicated a lack of understanding of the program expectations and the need for more organization. One comment did not “see the point of the entrepreneurship program.” In retrospect, we realized that a lot of time was spent on “brain storming” for an idea, and subsequent focus was lost on developing a single marketable idea.

In the second year, we brought in two new mentors, including one who is a surgeon and a successful entrepreneur. This mentor gave an introductory lecture on entrepreneurship in medicine that helped answer the “why” this is important to cancer care. Secondly, the entrepreneurship team mentors developed a timeline that included milestones to be met each week. This modification kept projects progressing. The second year went much more smoothly and produced three high-quality ideas. An item asked before and after the second-year course stated, “I understand the purpose of entrepreneurship in cancer research.” In the second-class PCAR program, we found that 38% of participants did not understand the purpose of entrepreneurship in cancer research before starting the program. At the end of the course, 88% strongly agree that they understood the purpose of the entrepreneurship program. In addition, detailed questions probing mentor and project were answered favorably (Fig. 1C).

Clinical Experiences

Our students joined a moderated support group for angiosarcoma on Facebook and interacted with the patients. They wrote reflections where many mentioned being impressed by the knowledge, empathy, and openness of these people facing a rare and deadly cancer.

Two medical simulation events at the UAMS Simulation Center were executed each year. These have been extremely well received by the students.

Medical Simulation Center Visit 1

Guided by physicians, students performed ultrasound examination of abdominal and breast manikins, ultrasound-guided needle biopsy, and manual palpation of breast manikins. This experience was highly rated. Comments after the session included the following: “Best day ever!”; “I found this to be really helpful and enlightening”; and “I’d go even longer with more stations! Loved it so much.”

Medical Simulation Center Visit 2

Student objective was to counsel the parents about HPV vaccine for their 12-year-old children. This visit was highly rated and garnered numerous positive comments including the following: “I absolutely loved this experience and wish we had more. Because of COVID we have been starved of patient interactions and this was so refreshing to actually practice our ‘Doctoring.’”

Palliative Care Clinic Visit and “Death Over Dinner”

In both years, each student had a single, 4-hour visit to the palliative care clinic. In the first year, all 12 students responded, and all were very positive about the clinic visit. In the second year, seven students responded to the survey, and again all positive. Sample comments include “Dr. X was so great to learn from! I learned about palliative care history, fields/services it encompasses, fellowship, advanced directives versus living will, and how the team works to care for patients and their families in a very tailored way.” Another comment is as follows: “I absolutely loved shadowing Dr. X. she was incredible and gave me good insights about not only palliative care, but also my career as a woman physician and medical student.”

The Death Over Dinner event was well received. Six out of the 11 students that attended responded to the survey and their comments were very positive about this experience. Some of the comments were as follows: “I thought that this was a unique opportunity to share raw feelings. It created a safe space to talk about how I'd like to die and what I found most important. It also got me thinking to ask those around me about death and dying and how they'd like to die. I thought having the palliative care physicians was amazing. They were great facilitators in the conversation and provided experienced insight.” Another comment was “This may have been my favorite event because it allowed us to have vulnerable conversations in a non-judgmental space. This was truly terrific.”

Integration of clinical experiences with lecture series topics and research projects occurred during “Live from the Lab!” discussions. For example, the lecture prior to the second medical simulation on HPV counseling featured a description of HPV infection, E6 and E7 protein function, and the strains of HPV that are associated with cervical and penile cancers. Many of the student projects featured novel approaches to detecting or treating cancer. Some of the novel experimental approaches were covered by lectures on liquid biopsy, genomics, proteomics, and immunotherapies. In addition, students could appreciate how new experimental approaches, related to their projects such as virotherapy and proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs), could complement mainstays of cancer treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Finally, the clinical experiences, including the social media interaction with patients experiencing cancer treatments and interactions with patients at the end of life, brought the consequences of having cancer and being treated for cancer into focus.