holman pathway?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

pastelist

New Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hoping some of you guys have advice...
I'm interested in applying for the Holman pathway. I was surprised, however, to find that my home program director has a rather negative opinion of the Holman, saying 6 mos is more than enough time for research, and our focus should be on clinical training, not research. Of course, I don't want to compromise my clinical training. But I was hoping it would be possible to have extended research time, as provided by a pathway like the Holman, and still get adequate training as a clinician!
Are most programs anti-Holman? And do most programs frown upon too much time spent on research during residency? And finally, do you guys think it is true that spending 21 mos doing research would compromise training as a radiation oncologist, or does this opinion vary according to institution? (I'm hoping there are some more "research-friendly" programs out there...)
 
I'm a PGY-1 (prelim intern) who is planning to apply to Holman at the end of my PGY-2. I have a strong interest in combining basic science w/ clinical radonc and was not afraid to state this bluntly during my interviews.

My experience varied from:
1. (little/no bench research availability) We can give you four months . . . tops
2. (some availability) We can give you nine months
3. (great availability/anti-Holman) We can give you a year
4. (great availability/pro-Holman) *note that these institutions are rare, I could probably count all of them w/ two hands*

So yes, most programs are anti-Holman for varying reasons. These include (a) they need residents to staff clinics (b) do not have a strong basic science mission (c) are against it philosphically or (d) do not have the ability to grant significant research time by their parent instutition.

As to the question of do Holman candidates get adequate clinical training, my answer is an unqualified yes. Let's keep a few things in mind. First, you CANNOT enter the Holman Pathway if your clinical skills or knowledge base are medicore or sub-par. In fact you are required to be well above average. Second, you cannot enter Holman Pathway unless you have serious research experience (PhD or equivalent). Third, your sponsor institution must have appropriate facilities/resources to allow you to puruse research. Fourth, both your program chair and PD need to be on board. Finally, you will be expected to enter an academic position w/ a strong basic science component.

If you do Holman you will be a very, very poor applicant for private practice jobs . . . frankly, these potential employers can do a lot better than hire some guy/gal who has been pining in lab for two years.

That said, the record of Holman grads speaks for itself. If you are gunning for an academic/basic science position, then this will put you at the top of the list.

I emailed my PD @ the start of my intern year to inquire if he/she will consider Holman. His/her answer was "yes, but we'll wait till a lot of your 2nd year is over (April 2008) to see if you have the clinical skills."

Needless to say, I'm looking forward to working hard . . .
 
Thanks Gfunk for taking the time to write your very helpful reply. I'm hoping to stay in academics and basic science research, having had training as a mudphud, and was honest in my personal statement about my future intentions. I didn't realize very few programs were pro-Holman. Would you mind providing more detail regarding your "two hands"? Thanks again for your help.
 
Would you mind providing more detail regarding your "two hands"? Thanks again for your help.

Places that I know for a fact residents have done Holman in RadOnc:

U Penn
U Michigan
Vanderbilt
Harvard
MSKCC
Stanford
WashU
U Chicago
U Iowa
Emory
OHSU

Places that I don't know for sure Holman has been done but would very likely support it given the right candidate (if people have specific info, please correct me):

MDACC
UCSF
SUNY-Buffalo

Good luck applying this year. Many people (faculty/residents/medical students) are highly cynical and skeptical (some in top institutions) of residents doing significant research in residency. Don't let them turn you into a pessimist or give up your dreams!

I will say this . . . it is absolutely absurd for an MD/PhD graduate (w/ strong research productivity) to be "forced" to do a 2-year post-doc just because the program faculty refuses to provide research time. This one of the most annoying comments I heard on the interivew trail last year,

"Why don't you do a 2-year research fellowship after residency instead of taking away from clinical time during residency?"

Translation: "We are too lazy/unmotivated/lacking in vision/lacking in facilities to provide you with research so why don't you staff our clinics for four years and become someone else's headace when you graduate? Besides, all of your fellow grads will be making roughly $250-300+K starting salaries in private practice so it shouldn't rankle you one bit to accept two more years of $55K as a fellow even though you've put in your time to get a PhD."

Our range of residency selection is more limited than individuals who want private practice, where the institution matters far less.
 
Places that I know for a fact residents have done Holman in RadOnc:

U Penn
U Michigan
Vanderbilt
Harvard
MSKCC
Stanford
WashU
U Chicago
U Iowa
Emory
OHSU

Places that I don't know for sure Holman has been done but would very likely support it given the right candidate (if people have specific info, please correct me):

MDACC
UCSF
SUNY-Buffalo

Good luck applying this year. Many people (faculty/residents/medical students) are highly cynical and skeptical (some in top institutions) of residents doing significant research in residency. Don't let them turn you into a pessimist or give up your dreams!

I will say this . . . it is absolutely absurd for an MD/PhD graduate (w/ strong research productivity) to be "forced" to do a 2-year post-doc just because the program faculty refuses to provide research time. This one of the most annoying comments I heard on the interivew trail last year,

"Why don't you do a 2-year research fellowship after residency instead of taking away from clinical time during residency?"

Translation: "We are too lazy/unmotivated/lacking in vision/lacking in facilities to provide you with research so why don't you staff our clinics for four years and become someone else's headace when you graduate? Besides, all of your fellow grads will be making roughly $250-300+K starting salaries in private practice so it shouldn't rankle you one bit to accept two more years of $55K as a fellow even though you've put in your time to get a PhD."

Our range of residency selection is more limited than individuals who want private practice, where the institution matters far less.


This attitude amazes me. It is beyond dreams of avarice for the research centers to lust after the "cheap/free" fellows. At the risk of exposing myself, I was at Michigan when Lichter was just starting the dept. Lichter was one of the prime movers to get the rad onc residency switched from three to four years. The prime rationale he, and other chairs had for it at the time was to have the residents spend the year doing research to provide warm bodies for the research programs. I don't know if the ABR actually stated that, but in the early efforts for moving the residency to a four year program keyed on the concept that residents needed to spend time in research. I think I need to spray some more WD40 on my neck to keep it from creaking as a continue to shake my head!
 
a lot of PD's dont like it. It severely cuts into clinical time. For bench research, 6 mos isnt much time; taking a fellowship year is not an unreasonable option. Of course many students are happy not to have to do extra time in training with a fellowship. Never the less man have strong reservations about the limited clinical time with Holman; think about it- radonc was upped from 3 to four years fairly recently. And now a program to cut it down to 27 mons? You can imaging the concern folks would have. th "reason" to up the time to four years Ive heard vary. There is no doubt the filed has become more complicated even since I started. but it makes little sence to cut the clincal time below that which they had previously. Remember: youre an MD and your first responsibility will be to your patients (unless you decide to forgo the clinical side of your career). Be careful not to pooh-pooh the concerns your training physicians have over a deep cut in clinical time. I'ts a reasonable concern.
 
Interesting you'd say this, G, because of one very personal realization. I'm beginning to question my abliity to learn everything in 48 months. To think that someone could learn it in 27 months makes me think that you are far smarter than I am (very possible, as I'm realizing I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed in this field) vs. you are underestimating what it takes to be proficient in this field. I don't know the right answer, but I Know that it should be a very special case that one would be allowed to graduate with just 27 months of clinical radiation oncology. Regardless of what the mission of the program is, the ABR has very strict requirements on number of cases, etc. to be a practicing oncologist. Maybe you will see that number in your department and maybe you will be proficient enough to pass your boards, but for me, without the length of training, I would definitely not be able to do the same.

-S
 
Related to GFunk's comment, why not examine the actual data? Why not compare the clinical abilities of Holman Pathway graduates vs. normal pathway graduates? Do Holman graduates do more poorly on the boards? Are those graduates any less qualified or do poorly clinically in their new academic positions post graduation?

A more pointed question to ask: "Would any of the anti-Holman crowd not hire a Holman graduate for their faculty?
 
For additional specific details regarding research issues for trainees see-

Radiation oncology, resident research, and the American Board of Radiology Holman Pathway
Wilson LD, Haffty BG, Harris JR
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
01 July 2005 (Vol. 62, Issue 3, Pages 623-625)
 
As to the question of do Holman candidates get adequate clinical training, my answer is an unqualified yes.

Although I am in favor of the Holman pathway for people interested in becoming physician-scientists, I would have to say that the jury is still on that above statement. The 1st batch of Holman grads have just graduated, what, this past year? One way to judge is how well they have done on boards, which from what I hear, pretty well and the other is what others think of them as practicing attendings in the clinic.
 
There is a Holman graduate who is an attending at Yale (2 years+ now). I know the person is board certified, is an outstanding clinician with a busy service, and runs a lab.
 
A lot of places seem to support research (both basic science and clinical) but the Holman Pathway appears to be a different animal. I don't really understand why. Some people feel that you don't get as strong of a clinical training doing the Holman Pathway. Some programs may need residents to man the clinics. Frankly I think the tradition of the physician-scientist is not as strong in rad onc as some other fields, i.e. med onc, so many programs may be resistant to this concept. The Holman Pathway is not suitable for everybody but it could be a really good fit for the right individual. From my limited experience, larger programs tend to be more flexible. A lot of programs are willing to help you secure funding to pursue research, especially if you are willing to extend your training time (sort of like a fellowship) but very few programs are truly excited about the Holman Pathway. Michigan, MDACC, U Chicago, Harvard and Penn come to mind. There may be others. Duke, Wisconsin, Stanford, JH and maybe UCSF are supportive of research in general but not so crazy about the Holman. MSKCC has had a very successful track record for Holman candidates but its focus now is almost entirely clinical, though that may change in the future depending on the vision of its new department chair. If you're committed to pursuing a research career, you can definitely make it happen, with or without the Holman Pathway.
 
Although I am in favor of the Holman pathway for people interested in becoming physician-scientists, I would have to say that the jury is still on that above statement. The 1st batch of Holman grads have just graduated, what, this past year? One way to judge is how well they have done on boards, which from what I hear, pretty well and the other is what others think of them as practicing attendings in the clinic.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the program began that recently. I imagine we'll have answers to my questions within a few years via an article in the Red Journal.
 
Vanderbilt is a program that should be added to the list of extremely Holman-friendly training programs. There are other places that will consider it for the right fit between candidate and program. Obviously places with larger basic research operations will potentially have more interest in the Holman concept. Yale is a strong advocate of the Holman program as evidenced by the authors of the above referenced editorial, but most of the trainees there have been more clinically oriented, so a clinical investigator track was developed in conjunction with the RWJ Clinical Scholars Program to make the best of both worlds available. Some have argued that only the larger programs can "afford" to support the Holman pathway, but Vanderbilt is a relatively small training program and has had a variety of trainees already in the Holman program. So, it really comes down to the basic research infrastructure of the department, interest and understanding of the Holman concept, mutual research interest between candidate and program(obviously), and potential of the candidate. The Holman was intended to be a very selective program.

That said, if you are interested in basic research, you do not necessarily have to be a Holman person to succeed. Most of the training programs that have strong research programs are set up to allow 12 months of clinical or basic research. The primary question to ask is: is it truly protected time? Note that in the Holman program 20% of the 21 research months is to be spent in the clinical environment so after this is factored in, it is really 17 months of net non clinical time which is better than 12 but not so substantial to make or break a research career. So, a place that offers a legit 12 months of research is a decent alternative. Problem is, most do not...

Keep in mind that the successful basic research folks in the field of radiation oncology were not Holman pathway candidates by definition.....since it did not exist.
 
the boards in and of themselves are not a complete measure of the clinical skills of the student. (there are very skilled docs who've failed the boards and very scarey docs who've passed them). I would encourage you all not to get terribly pedantic about this issue. The question of proper clinical training is a very fair one and there is no one perfect time frame requisite for everyone nor a perfect measure of competency. MDs are MDs first and foremost. The role of the physician researcher is extremely important, but they are PHYSICIAN resesarchers. Thus competency in the clinic is uncompromising. Programs must figure out how to assure that and then work out how to fit in a program to develop the research aspect for the interested physician. Perhaps in can be done with in the 4 year time frame. Perhaps the training period needs to be extended out for the trainee. but assurence in the clinical arena has to come first and be the dictate in structuring the program.
 
I agree that clinical training must always have primacy during residency. As others have stated, not anybody can apply to Holman -- you have to prove that you can still be an excellent physician with accelerated clinical training.

Nor should all departments sponsor students, but the crux of the OP's question was WHICH programs are amenable to students pursuing this path. I think the topic has strayed to debating the philosophy of Holman in general.

In my opinion, it is reasonable w/ MD's to do a 2-year research fellowship. For MD/PhDs who have spent 4+ years in the lab, Holman is a far better alternative. I hope that, in the future, PDs/chairs will begin to increase research time in residency for everybody as befits their mass recruitment of MD/PhDs and MDs w/ research publications -- Holman nonwithstanding.
 
I have no idea how anyone can give an "unqualifed yes" to the question as to whether or not the pathway gives adequate clinical training. I can also tell you that the creators of the holman pathway are cognizant enough of this reality to deny some resident applicants admission to the pathway for that very reason. They have to be evaluated and can get turned down because its felt they need more clinical time. (as Gfunk has noted). I think its wonderful for radonc to encourage and encorporate basic research for those so inclined. Its good for the field. Holman as a pathway towards this end? A much more complicated story.
 
I have no idea how anyone can give an "unqualifed yes" to the question as to whether or not the pathway gives adequate clinical training..

It's my opinion obviously, but keep in mind that Holman is created/sanctioned/blessed by the American Board of Radiology. If they though it would produce slipshod clinicians, I don't think they would support it.

Besides, accelerated clinical training for physician-scientists has long been a staple in other fields. The oldest/most respected is probably the American Board of Internal Medicine's fast-track for IM/related sub-specialities.

Holman is absolutely not designed for physicians who plan on going into "general" RadOnc in private practice.

Finally, I think the general perception is that residency training is fairly bloated across the board w/ all specialites. In other words, it is probably longer than it has to be. And, as landon stated, "only 27 months" is not accurate -- 20% of your 21 research months have to be clinical activities.

As others have stated, the key to Holman is choosing the right candidates. Not any MD/PhD can enter it, nor should they be allowed to do so.
 
the ABR also sanctioned to extend the residency to 4 years. At the time the feeling was that 36 wasn't enough. To the extent that the thinking was in part that there should be more time for research, that's still 36 mos expected of clinicals at least and obviously they dont expect everyone to do a full year of research. The ABR standard is also qualified by the fact that program directors can nix an applicant who they feel needs more clinical time and its been done.

That the pathway isn't for the "private practioner" is obvious. But that's neither here nor there; the serious translationsal research clinican who spends only a couple of days in clinic needs to be just as clinically competant coming out of residency as the general practice doc.

There is a lot of nitpicky disection that is beginning over this issue- classic when people want to prove their points (i.e.; the ABR says its ok versus "you need at least x amount of mos to be a good clinician" etc) and that direction is similar to the "at what month does an embryo become human" arguement. Essentially, its merely a way to make points and I don't believe that is useful in any meaningful way. I will leave it at the notion that as a practicing Radiation Oncologist, the cut into clinical training time for this pathway gives me pause.

ADDENDUM: Note to Ted DeWeese: If it is shown that 27 mos is adequate for clinical training for the bulk of us, I want a fellwoship tacked onto my name for my extra 21 mos of service in the clinic.
 
I have to agree that the issue of "adequate" clinical training is a difficult one. I have never aspired to be adequate at anything, but I think that when it comes to the Holman pathway there have to be tradeoffs. Time away from research isn't as easy to make up as some seem to think. For many Holman residents, they will have been out of the lab for 4 years (MS3, MS4, internship, PGYII) prior to getting things started in the lab. If you do a "normal" residency, add 3 more years to this and you are now 7 years out from your last real lab experience. As someone who is going though this now, it is hard to get back into the swing of things after only 4 years. While some exceptional people can manage to be in the lab at night and in the clinic all day, for most this is not reasonable.

To expect someone to be out of the lab for 7 years, then do a 2 yr postdoc (during which you really won't accomplish anything because all the tools you use are new) and then start a lab/faculty position is laughable. I know people do it, but they often struggle. The Holman pathway is one way to make this a little smoother.
 
Related to GFunk's comment, why not examine the actual data? Why not compare the clinical abilities of Holman Pathway graduates vs. normal pathway graduates? Do Holman graduates do more poorly on the boards?

At the ASTRO Annual Meeting we had a first meeting of Holman pathway residents and graduates. I can say that, personally, it was tremendously enlightening and useful.

Here are some hard stats:

• Holman pathway started in 1999
• The organizers of the meeting identified 25 Holman graduates since then. Unfortunately they didn't have the breakdown of Radiation Oncology vs Diagnostic Radiology grads.
• 24 of 25 grads obtained "physician-scientists" positions at academic medical centers. The same number obtained clinical salaries despite ~ 20% clinical time and the same number passed their oral boards.
• There was some concern that the number of Holman residents currently in training may exceed the number of physician-scientists jobs.
• Only Holman candidates are seriously considered for the few physician-scientist positions in Rad Onc departments.

Like I said, enlightening . . .
 
Interesting...but also not surprising. I think the biggest concern is the ratio of residents vs. jobs out there for physician scientists, esp. since it seems like many dept. are being pressured to hire clinical folks, given the state of economy and such.
 
Here are some hard stats:

• Holman pathway started in 1999
• The organizers of the meeting identified 25 Holman graduates since then. Unfortunately they didn't have the breakdown of Radiation Oncology vs Diagnostic Radiology grads.
• 24 of 25 grads obtained "physician-scientists" positions at academic medical centers. The same number obtained clinical salaries despite ~ 20% clinical time and the same number passed their oral boards.
• There was some concern that the number of Holman residents currently in training may exceed the number of physician-scientists jobs.
• Only Holman candidates are seriously considered for the few physician-scientist positions in Rad Onc departments.

Like I said, enlightening . . .

I have to say that having 25 graduates when the number of residents with MD/PhDs entering both radiology and radiation oncology is likely much higher is disappointing. I don't have the exact numbers to support, but if we consider the 1999-2004 period constitutes these 25 graduates, and Andriole et al. JAMA 2008 calculates 148 MD/PhDs entering radiology from 2000-2006 (radiation oncology is not listed separately), then the fraction of those pursuing Holman over the MD/PhD entrants is very low. I grant that when the Holman pathway first started not many might have wanted to pursue an untested research track, so I'm interested in seeing further data.

Hearing that demand exceeds supply for physician scientist jobs is another disappointment, and to me even disturbing. Every year at least 25 MD/PhDs enter RadOnc and 30 MD/PhDs enter Radiology. Certainly not all of those entrants want to continue research. But if physician scientist jobs are so limited that each year only a small fraction of those entrants can gain a position, then why are we spending millions on training these MD/PhDs in the first place? My initial reaction after seeing this is that the number of MD/PhDs entering radiation oncology or radiology and are serious about pursuing research should be significantly reduced!
 
Last edited:
I will say that the point about physician-scientist applicants outstripping demand was an anecdotal point. Second, all applicants are not applying everywhere, they have regional preferences. Just keep those points in mind.

The ABR does not directly regulate the number of Holman residnts. Ultimately they leave that decision to the individual programs. It was suggested at the meeting that this be adressed.

Finally, understand the job market sucks this year . . . big-time. This only means finding an ideal job is difficult (location, etc.). It is is not the case that grads would be unemployed! Also realize that the job market is cyclical and it would be a mistake to apply this year's situation to the physician-scientist demand in general.
 
I think one of the other interesting points of the meeting was the potential success and advantage of doing a post-doc following residency. (Most grads didn't take this route.) I know this disappoints many, but I think it is very hard to develop a viable research program in 18 months of research time.

I agree that the rate at which MD/PhD med school graduates go on to physician/scientist jobs is somewhat appalling. As I'm on the interview trail I think I understand why at the national level those running MSTP training are disappointed that so many grads choose to go into radiology and/or radiation oncology.
 
Does anyone know how many RadOnc residents are actually doing the Holman pathway right now?
 
Does anyone know how many RadOnc residents are actually doing the Holman pathway right now?

http://theabr.org/ic/ic_other/ic_holman.html

I've received detailed info like this by contacting the person listed on the Holman website. My info is all several years old though and lost in a lab notebook somewhere.

As I'm on the interview trail I think I understand why at the national level those running MSTP training are disappointed that so many grads choose to go into radiology and/or radiation oncology.

A number of program directors have a paper in the process of publication that includes slide #18 here:

http://www.med.upenn.edu/mstp/documents/PlanningfortheFutureslides-Feb.2009.ppt

This slide shows that RadOnc is actually one of the more physician scientist friendly specialties. It's hard for MD/PhDs to start and maintain a research-based career in any specialty.
 
What that slide doesn't show is how many of those MD/PhDs are able to successfully find positions that give them the opportunity to compete successfully for RO1s.

I certainly don't mean to offend anyone, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't take 3-5 years of rigorous scientific training to see patients 3 days a week, run a clinical trial, and mentor some residents and med students through the retrospective chart reviews that litter our field.
 
I am planning to apply for the Holman Pathway in July and have general specific aims sketched out. Does anyone have experience with the application process or know of people to contact regarding successful applications, typical project proposals, general formatting guidelines, etc? I am very excited to have the opportunity to apply and would like to make my application as strong as possible. Mentors who have been through the process would be great as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
I've completed the Holman Pathway and guided two other residents (soon to be three) through the application process.

First off, EVERYONE gets into Holman that applies (apparently there has been one exception in Rad Onc since the pathway started). The reason is that individuals/institutions/mentors who apply for Holman are virtually always:

1. Qualified to do research (PhD or equivalent)
2. Have a strong proposal (screened by their mentor/PD/Chair)
3. Have strong facilities to do their proposed project
4. Have a strong mentor (publishes regularly; good sources of funding; good track record with trainees)

The one person who was denied had problems with #3 -- they didn't feel that his/her facilities were up to speed for what he/she was proposing.

Second, the Holman Pathway in and of itself gives you no research funding or any money whatsoever. All you are doing is petitioning the American Board of Radiology for abbreviated clinical training because of an interesting, relevant project being done in preparation for an academic career. That's it.

The ABR knows that the people who are in the best position to judge the strength of your proposal are at your own institution. Your PD has to sign off on your above average clinical competence to make sure that you won't kill anybody with abbreviated training. Your Chair and Mentor have to sign off on the quality of your project (appropriate for your time/resources, reasonable in scope). Therefore, the ABR won't deny your application unless there is some major red flag.

Finally, the real competition occurs when you try to apply for research funding separately. Many Holman pathway residents try to obtain an RSNA seed grant and, by contrast, this is a highly competitive process where your proposal is screened with scientific rigor.

Feel free to post additional questions or PM me. Good luck!


I am planning to apply for the Holman Pathway in July and have general specific aims sketched out. Does anyone have experience with the application process or know of people to contact regarding successful applications, typical project proposals, general formatting guidelines, etc? I am very excited to have the opportunity to apply and would like to make my application as strong as possible. Mentors who have been through the process would be great as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
ditto to Gfunk's comments. Also completed Holman pathway and would be happy to chat with those interested. send me a pm and we can talk.
 
I've been asked by an anonymous user through PM to detail the process of applying to the Holman Pathway. I've provided a step-by-step guide below for those who are also interested:

#1: Make sure your department Chair and PD are cool with you doing Holman.

The minimum requirements for Holman are 18 months of research with 80% commitment to lab. That means that your residency program will have a shortage in resident manpower during that time. There are a few ways that I've seen programs handle this:

a. Faculty see patients themselves and residents are not required to cover all attendings. This is only possible at programs that are really committed to research and pretty rare overall. Vanderbilt is one example (not sure if they still do it).
b. Faculty accept reduced resident coverage. This means the Holman resident covers that faculty member one day per week or for "20%" of the time. In practice, this never works out properly because of the way Rad Onc is setup. You will be likely spending 2 to 2.5 days per week on clinical activity. When I first started Holman at UCSF, this was the way it was done.
c. Hire on another resident outside the Match to beef up coverage. This is tough to do due to steep ACGME/RRC requirements where you have to prove that you have the clinical volume to take on a new resident. This is the current configuration at UCSF.

2. Identify a mentor

Under ideal circumstances, your mentor should be clinical faculty in your Rad Onc department who also runs a lab. This will help when you run into eventual conflicts with lab and clinical duties. At bigger research institutions however, there is a LOT of interesting research going on outside the Rad Onc department. One benefit of pursuing research at an outside, affiliated facility is that you may be physically too far to return for clinical duties in all but urgent situations. However, as alluded above, basic science faculty have little/no clout in your department. Make it clear to your mentor that they do not have to fund you. You will be receiving your resident salary and can additionally apply for research monies (detailed below).

3. Fill out the Holman application

Link is here. You need letters of reference from your Chair, PD and mentor. Your Chair/PD also have to cite that you are clinically superior and therefore may undergo abbreviated clinical training. You also have to write a brief summary of your research goals, methods, and infrastructure. For those of you who've applied for NIH grants, you'll note that this application is very short. The ABR essentially rubber stamps your application and they rely heavily on your department to rigorously select appropriate candidates. To my knowledge, only one person has ever been rejected from the Holman Pathway. The reason was that the Board felt that their research facilities were inadequate to do whatever they were proposing.

Holman has three application deadlines in on Mar 15, Jul 15, and Nov 15. You should give them a good 1.5 - 2 months to process your application and give you the green light.

4. Fill out annual Holman progress reports

Every year you, your PD, and mentor will have to detail the progress of your Holman research. Basically you have to report how your specific aims are progressing, where/if you presented or published your work, and if you are adhering to Holman guidelines. There are no requirements for Holman in terms of research productivity. If you don't produce a single abstract from your work, you can still graduate.

************************
Some final thoughts:

I don't recommend doing Holman the last 18 months of your residency (if you can help it) for two reasons. One, when you interview for jobs, you will not have any published data (because you will still be in the lab) and two, I think it is risky to do 20% clinical activity the last 18 months of your residency right before you start seeing patients independently.

Holman does not provide research funding. You have to do that independently. All Holman residents are encouraged to apply for an RSNA grant which gives you $50K for a year. It's not a ton of money but it will look very good on your application. Also, since money is involved, RSNA grant applications are screened rigorously for scientific merit. Just because you got Holman doesn't mean that an RSNA grant is a freebie.

If you have any questions or commentary, feel free to chime in.
 
Last edited:
I know this is an ancient thread, but I thought I would bump it up with my questions instead of starting a new one given the great information already posted.

Does anyone have any updated impressions of the Holman pathway or updated advice for incoming residents interested in it?

Are there any rotations that are necessary or helpful to complete during a PGY-1 year?

Lastly, have any holman pathway residents pursued more clinical work (phase I/II clinical trials, etc) rather than entirely lab-based work?
 
Holman is controversial. I recently applied and I do think it's right for me but it's still very scary some days to think I will only do a service or two once in residency.

I have formulated my own opinions on a few things.

First is the cost. It's a lot of time out of clinic. I'm going to have to get creative to make sure I seek out extra experience with things like GYN brachytherapy etc for which I simply won't get another full rotation. It requires a lot of diligence and even then I will get less clinical experience in at least some aspects of rad onc.

That has to be balanced against reward. What will the Holman do for you?
It depends on your goals and experience. I have a lot of research experience, prior funding, etc and I want to do very translational research for which there is relatively lots of funding. I have a good shot at getting a transitional award to move into a Jr faculty position with the Holman experience.

That being said, I may still need to do a research fellowship after residency. People doing hard core, not directly translatable research are almost guaranteed to need a fellowship even with Holman. So are residents with no prior publications or funding. You simply can't do enough during 18 months to be ready. It's hard to do even in the ideal situation.

If you have a real high chance of needing to do a fellowship after residency I'm not sure Holman is worth the time out of clinic during residency.

Just a few of my thoughts. Anyone interested should talk to senior researchers for their thoughts.
 
Does anyone have any updated impressions of the Holman pathway or updated advice for incoming residents interested in it?

The advice I was given was to be 100% sure that you want a basic research career before doing a Holman. I wasn't sure, so I didn't do it, though it was offered to me by my program. Instead I'm doing a year of mostly clinical research, given the sad reality of basic science research funding in our field and in science in general.

Are there any rotations that are necessary or helpful to complete during a PGY-1 year?

Make sure you fulfill the internship requirements. See: https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Port...s/999_SpecialtySpecificRequirementsPGYCBY.pdf

My internship was so cush I almost missed the requirements. I guess this is no different if you're not doing Holman, but the Holman application material does stress this point.

Lastly, have any holman pathway residents pursued more clinical work (phase I/II clinical trials, etc) rather than entirely lab-based work?

Nowhere does it say that Holman has to be basic science research, but the requirements essentially are that you already have a PhD or PhD-level research prior to starting your residency. The application asks about the funding of your mentor and the facilities provided. These things are all geared towards basic research. I'm not saying that you couldn't be part of a trial as a Holman pathway resident. Also, maybe your basic research dovetails nicely into a translational trial. But, my impression is that the Holman pathway is for basic/bench research. You don't need a PhD to do clinical research, nor is a PhD in basic science (which probably >90% of the PhDs in our field are) helpful for clinical research.
 
Top