-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Hematology/Oncology 2025-2026 Application Cycle
Started by oncmdphd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
I remember that I received my first one 1st or 2nd week of July, but my memory can be way off🙂
And...I'm out. Good luck everyone.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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!
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.
proxhemedoc
New Member
It appears that the hem/onc spreadsheet stopped working as no one can edit it anymore. I created a new one so people can continue adding the updated information. Please go to this link and SHARE!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AWOJ_mfJj6TW-tKaXUG4QZ41DH-lwZBIgZLpSZK8pn0/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AWOJ_mfJj6TW-tKaXUG4QZ41DH-lwZBIgZLpSZK8pn0/edit?usp=sharing
Or...you know...just post stuff here where it can't get hijacked, deleted, spammed or otherwise hosed.
MyeloidFan34
New Member
Anyone else feel that interviews this year have been way random. Compared to residency, it's even more of a crapshoot.
The signaling thing has been interesting for us on the program side (to say the least!)
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.
Couldn’t agree more. Head is spinning a bit
MyeloidFan34
New Member
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.
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.
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)
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.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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:
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.
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
hemeoncapp20252026
New Member
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.
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).
MyeloidFan34
New Member
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).
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).
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
hemeoncapp20252026
New Member
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!
MyeloidFan34
New Member
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.
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.
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.
And of course agree with the above
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.
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?
MyeloidFan34
New Member
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...
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
1 word...Buffalo
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......
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:
They have excellent alumni and train people well for both. Buffalo is a hard sell.
This was what I was getting at. It's a fine training program. Buffalo is Buffalo though.
It’s 99% location.
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.
Agree with above
I matched at my program from their second wave of invites and was later invited to stay on as faculty 🤷🏼♂️
MyeloidFan34
New Member
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.
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.
MyeloidFan34
New Member
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?
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.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
hemeoncapp20252026
New Member
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.
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.
hemeoncapp20252026
New Member
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?
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).
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.
