Must be former engineer, physicist?

[Wednesday]

I'm only an MSII, but I'm doing some research in radiation oncology this summer and I have really been pleased with what I have learned about the field. I have been looking at these posts off and on and have noticed that many people here (and in the radiology forum) are former engineers or come from a physics background. I was a theater major in college and did post-bacc work for med school. I have always loved physics and math and have always done quite well in these classes, but I don't have tons of experience with them obviously. I'm wondering if my non-science background would hinder me from ever matching in radiation oncology?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MacGyver]

The secret of rad onc and radiology is that the doctors themselves dont understand diddly about the physics...

Whenever new imaging protocols are developed in MRI or a new technique in rad onc is developed, its always physicists or engineers who are the leading authorities on it.

 

[stephew]

"about the physics...

Whenever new imaging protocols are developed in MRI or a new technique in rad onc is developed, its always physicists or engineers who are the leading authorities on it"

well.... yes and no. Its absolutely true that you dont need any strong physics or mechanical background do be a radiation oncologist- the field doesnt assume you are. However its hardly true that "its always the physicists or engineers" who are leading authorites on technical developments (in rad onc at least). See Dr Suit, Dr Fletcher, Dr Leskell etc.This isn't at all meant to pooh-pooh our physics colleagues, or to suggest you have to be a high powered mathamatician to do this- but many of the advances, even in techology have been spurred by MDs as well as PhDs in physics. And many people who lead the way never were particularly involved in such interests prior to being in rad onc.

I do think a great new exciting technique led by Dr Mackie (NOT an MD) is tomotherapy.

 

[sleep deprived]

So in terms of intellectual skill and ability, how does the radiation oncologist differ from the medical oncologist? How are the strengths required for the two feilds different?

 

[stephew]

they are very different fields. In terms of intellectual skill ... whoo boy, that's not a hot one. Let me rephrase. What skills mark a rad onc versus med onc?

Well rad onc requires a sort of thinking in the treatment planning more akin to surgical thinking. The three-dimenional "how do I go in there to get the job done" is utilized in picking the best modality, forming the best treatment and best plan for the individual patient. Radonc, more than any other field Ive ever seen, utilizes the literature and requires a huge fund of knowledge. That's what attracted me to it. There is an incredible amount of techno advancement. what's done now at the end of my residency is different than that from the beginning of it. Med onc doesnt move in that way

This isn't to suggest med onc doesnt apply thinking, evidence based info or doesnt evolve; of course it does. Medicine overlaps in all fields. But the emphasis or stress is different, and its more pharm driven which modification of drugs or the addition of new classes, rather than techno driven. Its more internal medicine oriented than rad onc (which - being an onc field does require a healthy knowledge of IM).

Id say the best rad onc docs like reading literature, enjoy novel planning and technology, and life patient interaction.