Hematology/Oncology 2025-2026 Application Cycle

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I remember that I received my first one 1st or 2nd week of July, but my memory can be way off🙂
 
Just to remind everyone that many (if not most) PD's know about the yearly SDN spreadsheet and have seen it. This has been discussed in PD forums / PD retreats nationally. Furthermore, the applicants page has enough detailed information that we can figure out who some of them are (especially when specific scores / signaling details are given). Information regarding programs is not always accurate / frequently inaccurate, so use at your own risk.

Best of luck to all!
 
How are folks doing? I had a very productive day in clinic today - saw a ton of prostate, HCC, pancreatic cancer. Good discussions with attendings. It's almost every day that I'm attending a different organ-system MDC. I'm certainly learning a lot and enjoying my elective rotation. I took a peak at that spreadsheet and it looks like a good amount of programs have begun to send out invitations. Thus far, I'm sitting on one invite.
 
Anyone else feel that interviews this year have been way random. Compared to residency, it's even more of a crapshoot.
 
MyeloidFan34 said:
Anyone else feel that interviews this year have been way random. Compared to residency, it's even more of a crapshoot.
Click to expand...
The signaling thing has been interesting for us on the program side (to say the least!)
 
randomhemoncpd said:
The signaling thing has been interesting for us on the program side (to say the least!)
Click to expand...
Would you go so far as to call it stupid?

I'll be the first to admit that the system needed a solution to the application spamming problem. But aside from cranking up the costs beyond 10 or 20 programs, signaling is probably the 2nd stupidest way to manage it.
 
randomhemoncpd said:
The signaling thing has been interesting for us on the program side (to say the least!)
Click to expand...
Would love to hear how the programs feel once the match is over. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect, but I am getting a very interesting spread. There really is no predicting where you are going to get an interview based on invitations you already have.
 
gutonc said:
Would you go so far as to call it stupid?

I'll be the first to admit that the system needed a solution to the application spamming problem. But aside from cranking up the costs beyond 10 or 20 programs, signaling is probably the 2nd stupidest way to manage it.
Click to expand...

I think it helps programs (generally) but it hurts less competitive applicants. More selective / desirable programs can screen out applicants much faster since any applicant who doesn’t signal is DOA for competitive programs. A letter after the fact when there was no signal and/or a geographic preference that didn’t include the programs region means pretty much nothing.
 
gutonc said:
Would you go so far as to call it stupid?

I'll be the first to admit that the system needed a solution to the application spamming problem. But aside from cranking up the costs beyond 10 or 20 programs, signaling is probably the 2nd stupidest way to manage it.
Click to expand...
It has created the scenario where programs can entirely eliminate non signaling applicants. That saves a tremendous amount of time. I agree with @randomhemoncpd that some applicants are likely to be harmed with this. Also there is risk with moderately competitive programs in my opinion (similar to less competitive applicants being at a disadvantage)
 
whoknows2012 said:
It has created the scenario where programs can entirely eliminate non signaling applicants. That saves a tremendous amount of time. I agree with @randomhemoncpd that some applicants are likely to be harmed with this. Also there is risk with moderately competitive programs in my opinion (similar to less competitive applicants being at a disadvantage)
Click to expand...
100000%
gutonc said:
Would you go so far as to call it stupid?

I'll be the first to admit that the system needed a solution to the application spamming problem. But aside from cranking up the costs beyond 10 or 20 programs, signaling is probably the 2nd stupidest way to manage it.
Click to expand...
The thing I hate is the two tiered program — getting a silver signal is hard to interpret (i.e. we like you but no better than 6th). This tips the applicant’s hand slightly (whereas this information would have been strictly confidential before) and I think has zero benefit to the applicant or program.
 
randomhemoncpd said:
100000%

The thing I hate is the two tiered program — getting a silver signal is hard to interpret (i.e. we like you but no better than 6th). This tips the applicant’s hand slightly (whereas this information would have been strictly confidential before) and I think has zero benefit to the applicant or program.
Click to expand...
Kind of what I figured. Definitely puts more power in the programs hand, which is antithetical (IMO) to the whole idea of the Match, which used to put more power in the hands of the applicants, who are already very much at a disadvantage.

I'm not an economist or statistician, nor am I a PD or applicant at this point. But I think a more fair system would be one in which applicants can only apply to a certain number of programs at a time (20, 30, whatever) and programs have to keep their active applicant list to some multiple of available spots (5x, 10x, 20x, whatever). At certain timepoints in the season, programs have to either offer interviews or reject applicants so they know where they stand. Then applicants having < some number (10, 15, whatever) interview invites can apply to some additional number of programs (5, 10, whatever). Lather, rinse, repeat, etc, etc. Probably not that much extra work for programs, would require a little more work on the part of applicants. Most of the work would be on the ERAS backend.

This might be a terrible idea. But it's probably not any worse than this mystical "signaling" system than neither applications, nor programs, seem to understand.
 
Last edited:
gutonc said:
Kind of what I figured. Definitely puts more power in the programs hand, which is antithetical (IMO) to the whole idea of the Match, which used to put more power in the hands of the applicants, who are already very much at a disadvantage.

I'm not an economist or statistician, nor am I a PD or applicant at this point. But I think a more fair system would be one in which applicants can only apply to a certain number of programs at a time (20, 30, whatever) and programs have to keep their active applicant list to some multiple of available spots (5x, 10x, 20x, whatever). At certain timepoints in the season, programs have to either offer interviews or reject applicants so they know where they stand. Then applicants having < some number (10, 15, whatever) interview invites can apply to some additional number of programs (5, 10, whatever). Lather, rinse, repeat, etc, etc. Probably not that much extra work for programs, would require a little more work on the part of applicants. Most of the work would be on the ERAS backend.

This might be a terrible idea. But it's probably not any worse than this mystical "signaling" system than neither applications, nor programs, seem to understand.
Click to expand...
The absolute top tier programs and fellows always get what they want, and smaller regional programs will probably always match some internal candidates that they really like, but of course this leaves out a wide swath of programs in the middle. At the end of the day for competitive fields, it's a zero sum game of musical chairs and unfortunately some will be left out. Now if we're seeing programs not filling *and* an unmatched rate that is going up (it was 22% IIRC last year), then yes, the process would be the problem.
 
randomhemoncpd said:
The absolute top tier programs and fellows always get what they want, and smaller regional programs will probably always match some internal candidates that they really like, but of course this leaves out a wide swath of programs in the middle. At the end of the day for competitive fields, it's a zero sum game of musical chairs and unfortunately some will be left out. Now if we're seeing programs not filling *and* an unmatched rate that is going up (it was 22% IIRC last year), then yes, the process would be the problem.
Click to expand...
This is definitely what I was alluding to above. Top programs and top applicants will always be fine. You just don’t want a mismatch to occur whereby applicants and programs that otherwise would’ve matched with each other (sounds weird? ) are not because of some unique aspect of the new system
 
randomhemoncpd said:
100000%

The thing I hate is the two tiered program — getting a silver signal is hard to interpret (i.e. we like you but no better than 6th). This tips the applicant’s hand slightly (whereas this information would have been strictly confidential before) and I think has zero benefit to the applicant or program.
Click to expand...
It's not that a silver means a program is necessarily 6th on our list. Personally I used golds to try and lock in interviews places I was a good competitive and "fit" match on paper. That was a different list than my top choices. Which is why tiered signaling is stupid, because you have to try and discern strategy.
 
hemeoncapp20252026 said:
It's not that a silver means a program is necessarily 6th on our list. Personally I used golds to try and lock in interviews places I was a good competitive and "fit" match on paper. That was a different list than my top choices. Which is why tiered signaling is stupid, because you have to try and discern strategy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification -- and yes, it adds an unnecessary layer as now programs are all trying to guess the intent of applicants with signals (and clearly we don't always get it right as you point out).
 
Asking for help understanding, please don't burn me.

I'm someone who has recently gotten into myeloid disease AML/MDS and cellular therapy. I work with an MD/PhD, but whenever I ask them about programs, they admit that they never really had to worry about shopping around since they short tracked. With interviews too - they say they don't really know anyone at the institutions I've been invited to interview. Outside of the general advice, I'd really like to ask what programs (in your opinion) would have the resources and faculty to support someone with my research interest (AML/MDS, cellular therapy in basic/translational science as an MD only applicant).
 
MyeloidFan34 said:
Asking for help understanding, please don't burn me.

I'm someone who has recently gotten into myeloid disease AML/MDS and cellular therapy. I work with an MD/PhD, but whenever I ask them about programs, they admit that they never really had to worry about shopping around since they short tracked. With interviews too - they say they don't really know anyone at the institutions I've been invited to interview. Outside of the general advice, I'd really like to ask what programs (in your opinion) would have the resources and faculty to support someone with my research interest (AML/MDS, cellular therapy in basic/translational science as an MD only applicant).
Click to expand...
Depends on geo preference;

Generally speaking however the below meet your requirements as will others;

DFCI
Upenn
Cornell
MSKCC
Fred Hutch
MDACC
UChicago
Northwestern
Possibly Cleveland Clinic
UNC
U Colorado (though unsure of their cart translational/clinical expertise)
Vanderbilt
Mayo

if you provide a geographic preference I can narrow the list
 
randomhemoncpd said:
Thanks for the clarification -- and yes, it adds an unnecessary layer as now programs are all trying to guess the intent of applicants with signals (and clearly we don't always get it right as you point out).
Click to expand...
I get the assumption though - having received a second wave interview invite at a program, I assume I'm a backup to their preferred options when that might not be the case!
 
whoknows2012 said:
Depends on geo preference;

Generally speaking however the below meet your requirements as will others;

DFCI
Upenn
Cornell
MSKCC
Fred Hutch
MDACC
UChicago
Northwestern
Possibly Cleveland Clinic
UNC
U Colorado (though unsure of their cart translational/clinical expertise)
Vanderbilt
Mayo

if you provide a geographic preference I can narrow the list
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for the help. Geo preference would really be East coast (VA to MA) and Midwest (Chicago, StL) and willing to go to West Coast for strong programs. Out of the above I will be interviewing so far at DFCI, Cornell, Fred Hutch, NW, and UNC. Applied to all those programs except for Cleveland Clinic. If you have any insight into the NIH program that would be great too as I will also interview with them - just nervous about funding given the current admin. Also Columbia.

I recognize that these are all excellent programs, so I don't want to come off as yucky, but I know that some programs are stronger in certain areas (solid vs liquid, clinical vs wet...) and I can't really discern that by the information online.
 
MyeloidFan34 said:
Thanks so much for the help. Geo preference would really be East coast (VA to MA) and Midwest (Chicago, StL) and willing to go to West Coast for strong programs. Out of the above I will be interviewing so far at DFCI, Cornell, Fred Hutch, NW, and UNC. Applied to all those programs except for Cleveland Clinic. If you have any insight into the NIH program that would be great too as I will also interview with them - just nervous about funding given the current admin. Also Columbia.

I recognize that these are all excellent programs, so I don't want to come off as yucky, but I know that some programs are stronger in certain areas (solid vs liquid, clinical vs wet...) and I can't really discern that by the information online.
Click to expand...
NIH is great though maybe not quite the same tier as dfci/mskcc. You will not get great clinical training there though. So I would only entertain that highly if you have no interest in a clinical career.

Columbia has a great reputation but isn’t considered a mal heme centric program so aml bmt cell therapy isn’t quite up to par with some of the others on your list. Still can’t go wrong but for you interests would be lower on the list.

Given your options the only program worth going to the west coast for would be Fred hutch.
 
MyeloidFan34 said:
Thanks so much for the help. Geo preference would really be East coast (VA to MA) and Midwest (Chicago, StL) and willing to go to West Coast for strong programs. Out of the above I will be interviewing so far at DFCI, Cornell, Fred Hutch, NW, and UNC. Applied to all those programs except for Cleveland Clinic. If you have any insight into the NIH program that would be great too as I will also interview with them - just nervous about funding given the current admin. Also Columbia.

I recognize that these are all excellent programs, so I don't want to come off as yucky, but I know that some programs are stronger in certain areas (solid vs liquid, clinical vs wet...) and I can't really discern that by the information online.
Click to expand...
The issue with the NIH program has historically been that it is extremely research focused with the clinical training/care being largely secondary. So it's a great place to become a zebra rancher, but not a great place to learn bread and butter oncology, even just bread and butter AML.

ETA: Apparently @whoknows2012 and I were typing at the same time.
 
gutonc said:
The issue with the NIH program has historically been that it is extremely research focused with the clinical training/care being largely secondary. So it's a great place to become a zebra rancher, but not a great place to learn bread and butter oncology, even just bread and butter AML.

ETA: Apparently @whoknows2012 and I were typing at the same time.
Click to expand...
And of course agree with the above
 
whoknows2012 said:
Given your options the only program worth going to the west coast for would be Fred hutch.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Stanford is at least as good on the research side. Utah (not "West Coast" per se but West) is arguably stronger than Colorado for heme mal. And CoH, despite having an odd sort of quasi-academic setup and an unclear (to me at least) academic affiliation, has a very robust BMT/Cellular therapy program.

There are plenty of other mid-tier West Coast programs that would be more than adequate as well.
 
gutonc said:
I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Stanford is at least as good on the research side. Utah (not "West Coast" per se but West) is arguably stronger than Colorado for heme mal. And CoH, despite having an odd sort of quasi-academic setup and an unclear (to me at least) academic affiliation, has a very robust BMT/Cellular therapy program.

There are plenty of other mid-tier West Coast programs that would be more than adequate as well.
Click to expand...
I was wondering why Roswell Park doesn’t seem to be highly regarded here. I don’t see many US MDs on their roster, and I’ve heard bits about fellows struggling with quality of life. Do you feel it prepares people better clinically, or more for academics or either at this rate? Why are they mainly recruiting IMGs?
 
Another question for the PDs. Now with signaling being a thing, do letters of interest have any value (unsure if they ever had value)? Or are they annoying and applicants should just let the system do its thing? I had GI friends from last year who swear they are helpful...
 
tomedwego said:
I was wondering why Roswell Park doesn’t seem to be highly regarded here. I don’t see many US MDs on their roster, and I’ve heard bits about fellows struggling with quality of life. Do you feel it prepares people better clinically, or more for academics or either at this rate? Why are they mainly recruiting IMGs?
Click to expand...
1 word...Buffalo
 
gutonc said:
1 word...Buffalo
Click to expand...
Wait I am lost, is the medical system bad or is it the location? I feel like there are decent medical systems in less than desirable locations. Mayo comes to mind......
 
its an NCI center, however, not being racist at all but in IMG circles it is known to be very Indian heavy program. Had some people tell me that even for residencies etc they prefer them.
 
MyeloidFan34 said:
Another question for the PDs. Now with signaling being a thing, do letters of interest have any value (unsure if they ever had value)? Or are they annoying and applicants should just let the system do its thing? I had GI friends from last year who swear they are helpful...
Click to expand...

To be honest, no real value and they’re slightly annoying when it’s from the applicant. A letter from a well known figure can help slightly provided that it’s real strong, but a cursory supplemental letter from someone is also useless.

(I edited - clarified that they’re generally not helpful and more on the annoyance level. As always this is just one point from one PD)
 
Last edited:
tomedwego said:
I was wondering why Roswell Park doesn’t seem to be highly regarded here. I don’t see many US MDs on their roster, and I’ve heard bits about fellows struggling with quality of life. Do you feel it prepares people better clinically, or more for academics or either at this rate? Why are they mainly recruiting IMGs?
Click to expand...

They have excellent alumni and train people well for both. Buffalo is a hard sell.
 
tomedwego said:
I was wondering why Roswell Park doesn’t seem to be highly regarded here. I don’t see many US MDs on their roster, and I’ve heard bits about fellows struggling with quality of life. Do you feel it prepares people better clinically, or more for academics or either at this rate? Why are they mainly recruiting IMGs?
Click to expand...
It’s 99% location.
 
gutonc said:
I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Stanford is at least as good on the research side. Utah (not "West Coast" per se but West) is arguably stronger than Colorado for heme mal. And CoH, despite having an odd sort of quasi-academic setup and an unclear (to me at least) academic affiliation, has a very robust BMT/Cellular therapy program.

There are plenty of other mid-tier West Coast programs that would be more than adequate as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, and there are stronger disease groups in certain areas at certain places. My personal bias is: leukemia, Fred Hutch; lymphoma, Stanford; myeloma, UCSF; and transplant, CoH.
 
Duke1K said:
Yeah I agree, and there are stronger disease groups in certain areas at certain places. My personal bias is: leukemia, Fred Hutch; lymphoma, Stanford; myeloma, UCSF; and transplant, CoH.
Click to expand...
Agree with above
 
hemeoncapp20252026 said:
I get the assumption though - having received a second wave interview invite at a program, I assume I'm a backup to their preferred options when that might not be the case!
Click to expand...
I matched at my program from their second wave of invites and was later invited to stay on as faculty 🤷🏼‍♂️
 
Are programs interviewing significantly less applicants this year? It seems like most programs have sent out invites. Just wondering if there is going to be another wave of interviews or if it’s all done for the year. I still haven’t been outright rejected from some programs but not sure if I should be optimistic or consider my chances over and expect a letter sometime close to the cycle ending.
 
MyeloidFan34 said:
Are programs interviewing significantly less applicants this year? It seems like most programs have sent out invites. Just wondering if there is going to be another wave of interviews or if it’s all done for the year. I still haven’t been outright rejected from some programs but not sure if I should be optimistic or consider my chances over and expect a letter sometime close to the cycle ending.
Click to expand...
During my time, some programs didn’t send rejection letters. If you didn’t get an invitation, that was generally understood to mean you were not selected.
 
We are interviewing pretty much the same number as the last few years. All invites sent. Lack of invitation means no interview.
 
Thank you everyone. All of your opinions and info have been really helpful.

Hopefully this is the last question I will ask hahaha, but what sort of things should be happening outside of the formal interviewing process that will help applicants match at their preferred programs? From what I've heard, there are conversations and other things that go on "in the background" that may influence ranking. I'm talking about things like letters or intent, phone calls from PDs or other home faculty, networking with outside faculty. TBH this is info I'm getting from friends that did the GI match last year, but how applicable is it for H/O. Should I just let the process do its thing, or should I be actively doing things to make myself a more desirable applicant?
 
Obviously send a thank you note. We notice when applicants don’t. A letter of intent (I.e. we’re ranking you #1) from the applicant post interview may very slightly move the needle, but we’re all aware that applicants lie about this and programs have no real recourse (the burning bridges thing doesn’t apply that much IMHO). Otherwise, there isn’t that much else applicants can do. Programs may choose to do targeted outreach such as having a specific faculty member reach out to try to sell the program. If we do that, it means you’re high on the list.
 
randomhemoncpd said:
Obviously send a thank you note. We notice when applicants don’t.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I've been told it's often unwanted spam. Do you look for it being sent to the PD, the coordinator, each person the applicant interviewed with, what's the expectation? I feel like if I was going to send one I'd send to the PD at most.
 
hemeoncapp20252026 said:
Interesting, I've been told it's often unwanted spam. Do you look for it being sent to the PD, the coordinator, each person the applicant interviewed with, what's the expectation? I feel like if I was going to send one I'd send to the PD at most.
Click to expand...
Short and sweet, to the PD alone. If you want to send a LOI of sorts (i.e. I'm ranking you #1) that's fine, but we certainly don't expect anything like that.
 
Question: if we're primarily interested in onc (little interest in benign heme, not a lot of experience with malignant heme) is that ok to say/is there a good way to say that in interviews?
 
hemeoncapp20252026 said:
Question: if we're primarily interested in onc (little interest in benign heme, not a lot of experience with malignant heme) is that ok to say/is there a good way to say that in interviews?
Click to expand...
I would not mention this explicitly. You have very little to gain and it could make you come off as a complainer (please note I’m not saying you are that at all — just that you only have a few minutes to make your pitch and first impressions matter).
 
hemeoncapp20252026 said:
Question: if we're primarily interested in onc (little interest in benign heme, not a lot of experience with malignant heme) is that ok to say/is there a good way to say that in interviews?
Click to expand...
This is most heme/onc applicants but I wouldn’t announce it right now. Just tell everyone how you love academia, passionate about all of heme/onc, then do your own thing once you’re in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Hematology/Oncology 2024-2025 Application Cycle
2 3
Replies
115
Views
44K
gutonc
gutonc
N
Med onc/hematology board impressions 2025
2
Replies
52
Views
11K
ShuperNewbie
ShuperNewbie
H
Hematology and Oncology Job Scene in NYC
Replies
6
Views
3K
whoknows2012
whoknows2012
WildWing
FAQ - Hematology/Oncology
Replies
0
Views
2K
WildWing
WildWing
sagim
hospitalist interested in hematology oncology
Replies
0
Views
2K
sagim
sagim
Top Bottom