Most relevant PhD

[Sephiroth]

For someone in an MD/PhD program, I've often seen that it is key that the PhD research be relevant. Also, if one wanted to be able to make the most use of their PhD while practicing radiation oncology, what subject would be most applicable? Medical physics or radiological sciences seems ideal when the school has such a program. Is that better than cancer biology, which from looking at it seems to be more like medical oncology - so is that even still a good option? How about BME? I'm just wondering which would see the most actual use in future practice.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gfunk6]

The specific discipline of your PhD is not particularly relevant since most faculty have multiple academic appointments. It is more important for your doctoral dissertation actually be relevant to Rad Onc. Consider collaborating with Rad Oncs in your academic center or putting one on your dissertation committee. Not only will this direct your research but will also pay clinical dividends when you return to medical school.

 

[Neuronix]

I agree with Gfunk. It doesn't matter what department the PhD is in. What is most helpful is to have a rad onc PI with a rad onc project. It's not necessary, but that's what I'd recommend. If that's not possible, whatever you can do to be closest to that is advisable.

 

[ramsesthenice]

Agreed. This is not something you should worry about. If you are especially interested in Rad Onc then you should do a rad onc related project. I did not do mine in Rad Onc but I did very well in my PhD (got funded published 4 basic science FAPs) and medical school and pretty much rocked the match. I don't know where you are but the only thing I would add is there are a number of programs that are growing their rad onc programs and so many of the research faculty are just starting out. There are a number of pitfalls to joining a new lab. If you have to choose between a fledgling rad onc lab and an established, productive cancer biology/CMB/Immuno lab that supports its students well you may be better served opting for the established lab. I personally think productivity counts a little more than direct rad onc relevence during your PhD for a couple reasons (most importantly you have time in med school to prove your interest in rad onc and if you stand out on paper you will get interviews). In any case, I doubt you would be at much if any real disadvantage if you joined the fledgling rad onc lab so I wouldn't really worry much about the choice. Obviously, the best case scenario is if your school has an established rad onc lab.

 

[Sephiroth]

Thanks guys. I had been wondering about looking at PhD programs in terms of what subjects are available. I just finished up a decent trail of interviews, and I actually got a pretty similar sentiment from the director at one - that what the PhD is in doesn't really matter that much anymore, now the project is more important. I don't really know anything about putting together a dissertation committee, but I guess that's something I'll worry about later.

 

[Neuronix]

I just finished up a decent trail of interviews, and I actually got a pretty similar sentiment from the director at one - that what the PhD is in doesn't really matter that much anymore.

A common sentiment from program directors that I hear is that it doesn't matter what your PhD topic is. They will say it's more important that you learn how to be a good scientist and get good advising. This is what I disagree with. While it is important to have a good adviser and learn good science, strong residencies and faculty positions are extremely competitive. Thus, you should be learning research relevant to your future field and making connections within that field to position yourself for a strong residency match and establishing your own research niche.

Not everyone will know what residency they want when they start their PhD program. So my advice can't apply to everyone. The most important factors for matching are still clinical grades and step scores (especially step 1). But your best bet in my opinion is to try to pick a specialty early or at least narrow it down to a few specialties, and focus your research towards those areas. Not every MD/PhD program is going to have basic science labs in radiation oncology, so picking a program with those types of labs would be helpful to you.

 

[Sephiroth]

A common sentiment from program directors that I hear is that it doesn't matter what your PhD topic is. They will say it's more important that you learn how to be a good scientist and get good advising. This is what I disagree with. While it is important to have a good adviser and learn good science, strong residencies and faculty positions are extremely competitive. Thus, you should be learning research relevant to your future field and making connections within that field to position yourself for a strong residency match and establishing your own research niche.

Not everyone will know what residency they want when they start their PhD program. So my advice can't apply to everyone. The most important factors for matching are still clinical grades and step scores (especially step 1). But your best bet in my opinion is to try to pick a specialty early or at least narrow it down to a few specialties, and focus your research towards those areas. Not every MD/PhD program is going to have basic science labs in radiation oncology, so picking a program with those types of labs would be helpful to you.

Ok, thanks, that definitely gives me something more substantial to look at and consider.

Regarding your previous post, if something very directly radonc wasn't available, what would you consider the closest? Imaging? medical oncology?

Thanks.

 

[Neuronix]

Regarding your previous post, if something very directly radonc wasn't available, what would you consider the closest? Imaging? medical oncology?

Either one really. But you want to tailor it as close as possible to radiation. Imaging of cancer for example. Or medical oncology looking at things like DNA repair mechanisms.

 

[medstud200]

In my humble opinion, I'd say any field in cancer research will be applicable. I worked on a very basic science project toward my PhD and it turned out to be relevant to the field of Radiation oncology anyway which made for a very nice story. Furthermore, my "diverse" background allowed me to contribute something novel to the field and a new perspective. If you take a quick glance at the posters at ASTRO you'll find that everyone's doing DNA repair research. I'd personally say dig where no one else digs and be creative keeping radiation in mind and you will find something interesting. This may make you stand out more. And remember it's hard to predict where your PhD project will lead you. I would choose it based on good mentorship and scientific merit rather than try and get as close as possible to Radiation (as long as it's broadly in the cancer field).

Finally, remember that many residents in top programs who are doing research pathways don't necessarily work on radiobiology projects! in fact most I've seen do not!