Ophth vs Rad Onc

[Techmonkey]

Both seem to be very visual fields with elements of both medicine and high tech surgery/therapy. Both have an element of continuity of care and the right amount of patient contact although ophth has the advantage of not having to rely on referrals or having to liase with multidisciplinary teams. Lifestyle and compensation-wise they both seem to have decent hours with low night calls and good compensation.

Has anyone been in a position to decide between the two and what made you choose one over the other?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JMK2005]

Personally, I think these two specialties are very different if you look at the stuff that you are expected to know. Lifestyle wise, they may be similar.

Depending on how far along you are, I'd advise that you shadow or do some early rotation in both fields and decide what you like better. Then you can decide on which lifestyle would suit you as well.

I know that rad onc is very competative, so it would be wise to know early on that you want to do that and make connections and get involved in research. Same goes for ophthalmology, though I believe it is less competative than rad onc.

check out the FAQ on ophtho.

 

[neurodoc]

Both seem to be very visual fields...

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that ophtho and rad-onc are "very visual fields." It seems you're more focused on the "life-styles" of the specialties than what they actually do. Diagnostic radiology seems to me to be quite "visual," and that field offers just as much opportunity for interventional procedures as rad-onc, though of a different sort. Rad-onc is very technology dependent: XRT is for the most part computer-controlled. Opthalmologists use their hands to operate, assisted by microscpoes and other gadgets, but hand control, not computer control, is still paramount. Same goes for interventional radiologists (angiographic studies, aneurysm embolization, etc.). Also, I'd say that rad-onc offers little chance to be the main manager of patient treatment. Rad-oncs are almost always consultants, whose patients are managed by oncologists or other physicians. Ophthalmologists are also often "consultants," but they can assume a "primary care" role for patients with ocular disease. The rad-onc almost never assumes such a role for a patient with cancer.

Nick

 

[neurodoc]

BTW, I meant to add that some ophthalmologists do only "diagnosis." Rad-onc is a treatment (procedural) specialty. I'm not aware of any rad-oncs who do only "diagnosis."

Nick

 

[Caffeinated]

BTW, I meant to add that some ophthalmologists do only "diagnosis." Rad-onc is a treatment (procedural) specialty. I'm not aware of any rad-oncs who do only "diagnosis."

Nick

I am not aware of anyone in ophthalmology or any subspecialty of ophthalmology that only does "diagnosis" without engaging in "treatment." Cataract surgery, refractive surgery, retina surgery, etc. are only a few of the very common examples. Pathology and radiology seem to be specialties that specialize in "diagnosis" but I don't really see ophthalmology as one of those specialties. I guess if one just did primary care and referred all treatments to a specialist, then this would be true. But this would be extremely rare. 😕

 

[exmike]

I guess if one just did primary care and referred all treatments to a specialist, then this would be true. But this would be extremely rare. 😕

they're called "optometrists"

 

[neurodoc]

they're called "optometrists"

I appreciate the wit of your rejoinder, but there are some ophthalmologists who in fact limit their practice to "diagnosis" and non-surgical treatment. I call them "OD-plus" docs, and I know more than a few of them. The "plus" part is mainly that they'll prescribe for glaucoma, and if they are really daring, they'll do laser coagulation for diabetic RP. For some reason they shy away from doing more ballsy stuff.

One could say that these folk lack testicular fortitude (or its equivalent for the gals), but I prefer to remain non-judgmental. The point is that an ophthalmologist CAN chose a non-surgical practice. Whether that would make him an "optometrist" is arguable, and I'll leave the argument to others. 😉

 

[rubensan]

what made you choose one over the other?

one very wise person once told me that when choosing a field, make sure you like doing the boring stuff as well. this is what you will spend a lot of time doing. some of the reasons i chose ophthalmology was because the surgeries are cool, i like gadgets and learning how to master a body of knowledge that few other fields know very little about. although i could do without all of the refractions and r/o diabetic retinopathy, these things don't make me hate life like the mundane stuff of other fields. i'm not sure what constitutes the mundane aspects of rad onc, but you should get to know them and make sure you can do them. if you hate what you do for the majority of your career, compensation and lifestyle become less important.

good luck!