Perception of rad onc

[Totem]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Kind of a random question here, but how are radiation oncologists perceived by the general public and by medical professionals? Is it a prestigious specialty, or just a competitive match? For example, in general, do radoncs get bossed around at tumor boards?
Seems like many people don't know much about the field or think you're talking about radiology. If you had to compare it to another specialty or two, where would it fall in terms of prestige/respect? Not that prestige or respect is my reason for interest in the field, I'm just curious.

 

[Gfunk6]

Rad Onc is the wrong specialty if you're looking for prestige. In the non-medical world virtually no one knows who we are or what we do. Most MDs have strange (usually wrong) ideas about our training and professional scope. Only other oncologic specialties have a handle on what we do.

Rad Oncs dominate tumor boards. Our training emphasizes the latest in cutting edge oncologic care and we have more oncologic trainIng than any other specialty.

The most prestigious specialties are the most demanding ones both in training and practice (e.g. neurosurgery). Can you imagine how proud you parents would be to say, "my kid is a brain surgeon."
🙂

 

[thesauce]

No one knows who we are. I've been confused with X-ray tech so many times you wouldn't believe it. Personally, I like the low profile.

Docs that deal with cancer (medonc and most surgical subspecialties) know about us, but your average PCP doesn't.

Rarely are we referred by rads so I'm not surprised to hear they know so little about us. I met a rads resident during my 4th year that said she was considering a fellowship in radonc.

 

[Scatter]

My husband always say we're not a speciality, but a club!

In terms of prestige, I think MedOncs and SurgOncs definitely have more; they're the ones running the Cancer Centers, not RadOncs (Wally Curran notwithstanding). MedOncs, esp. the ones who maintain IM certification after 10 years, are heavyweights -- I mean, if you're a seasoned medonc, and still know the difference between Renal Tubular Acidosis subtypes, you're something special. I'm not even done with training, yet already forgot which spirochete causes syphilis. Some of the famous people in our field that we tend to erect gods of, are practically unknown in the outside circles. Regarding TBs, that depends -- I've been to some where we "dominate," but also to some where we sit on the sidelines. In some TBs you have to justify your very existence as a RadOnc, like some GI TBs, whereas in others, like Neuro and H&N, you're indispensable, of course.

Maybe if we take to heart what Dr. Zeitman is preaching (rad ONCs vs RAD oncs), we'll get more respect.

 

[deleted4401]

I think Scatter and her husband could not have said it any more accurately.

 

[johnthomas75]

I've been privy to 3 different academic medical centers tumor boards for a sufficient amount of time to notice that the presence of each specialty varies by the type of cancer and then just some overall personality factors.

Being a dominating presence isnt always a good thing, but it tailored for a particular reason- i.e. director of the clinical trial program at a cancer center, it has its benefits.

Dont mistake bravado and outspoken folks with those who know what they are doing. Often times it is quite the opposite. Ive seen a mix across specialties. I am proud to say that we have a nice mix in our program which competes well w/in our cancer center.

-johnthomas75
http://the-d-o-c-t-o-r.blogspot.com/