Educational representation of genitourinary malignancies in medical student curricula: A cross-sectional review of oncologic education in Caribbean and South American schools.

4 Background: Genitourinary (GU) malignancies, including prostate, bladder, renal, and testicular cancers, comprise a major proportion of global oncologic morbidity and mortality. Despite their significance, GU oncology receives limited attention in medical student curricula. Insufficient exposure may impair clinical competency, delay diagnosis, and reduce interest in urologic subspecialties. Methods: A cross-sectional content analysis was performed on publicly available curricula from 12 accredited medical schools (8 Caribbean, 4 South American) between May and August 2025. Each school’s preclinical and clinical syllabi, curriculum maps, and lecture schedules were extracted and standardized. Oncology-related content was identified using keyword-based text mining (“cancer,” “carcinoma,” “neoplasm,” “tumor,” “oncology,” “genitourinary,” “prostate,” “bladder,” “renal,” “testicular”). Content was categorized by organ system (genitourinary, gastrointestinal, hematologic, breast, pulmonary, endocrine, neurologic, dermatologic) and stratified by level (preclinical, clerkship, elective). Quantitative variables included total lecture hours, dedicated GU sessions, and number of assessment items. Data were independently verified by two reviewers. Comparative analyses assessed GU oncology representation relative to other malignancy categories. Continuous variables were summarized as means ± SD, and group comparisons used paired t-tests and ANOVA with p < 0.05. Results: Across the 12 programs, 486 oncology-related instructional hours were identified. GU malignancies accounted for 8.4% (40.8 ± 9.6 hours) of total oncology instruction, significantly lower than gastrointestinal (23.5%) and breast (17.9%) content (p < 0.01). Only 3 programs included a dedicated prostate cancer lecture, and none covered bladder cancer screening or testicular cancer survivorship. GU oncology appeared mainly within general pathology modules without clinical integration in 10 schools. Conclusions: GU malignancies are markedly underrepresented in medical student education across Caribbean and South American schools. This gap may hinder early detection competency and reduce interest in urologic oncology. Incorporating structured GU modules and clinical exposure could align curricula with cancer epidemiology and strengthen future physician readiness.