Rad onc rankings

[stephew]

this is from my chairman, Ted DeWeese, Colorado native and my personal hero:
The program is relatively small, andmuch more clinically active. He knows David Raben very well and Laurie Gaspar a little bit. Both are srong. The University itself is great ("I am biased, of course" he writes) and Denver is a wonderful place to live.

Hope this helps.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[stephew]

Dr. Woo is gone from Baylor.

 

[cancer_doc]

Originally posted by stephew
Dr. Woo is gone from Baylor.

Where did he go?

 

[music710]

please pardon my ignorance... what is the significance of Dr. Woo's departure?

steph, can you help enlighten? thanks!

 

[buckaroo]

new Penn website address:
http://www.xrt.upenn.edu/index.html

enjoy!

 

[stephew]

so you expect me to follow-up one bit of information with more information? This job is too hard. I want out.

Well ok. Ill find out where Dr Woo went.

 

[Radoncstud]

I believe Dr. Woo will be starting at MD Anderson sometime early next year.

 

[stephew]

any more input now that we are in the middle of applcation and soon-to-be interview season?

 

[Thaiger75]

I did a rotation at Baylor and I'm from the area, so I'm familiar with the program. Dr. Woo is the man and is one of the reasons why it's (was?) such a strong program. He's triple boarded in Peds, Peds Heme/Onc, and Rad Onc. He was previously at MD Anderson b4 taking over Baylor and is now back at MDA I'm assuming? He's good friends with Dr. Cox (chairman of MDA). Does anybody know who's taking over as Program Director at Baylor?

 

[stephew]

a great book title: The Significance of Woo.
this is merely a bump of this thread up.
Steph

 

[moops]

Originally posted by stephew
a great book title: The Significance of Woo.
this is merely a bump of this thread up.
Steph

hey steph,

where did you do your med trainign?

 

[stephew]

Which phase?
St George's U in Grenada for med school
Upstate for internship
JHH for residency.

 

[stephew]

Originally posted by rays
nowadays, it seems that all programs are competitive. here's my vague impression of some programs in terms of quality.

1. MD Anderson (very easy and comfortable residency with famous staff, seemingly unlimited resources but 100+ temps for like 3 months)

The first and only time Ive ever head of MDA as "easy" or "comfortable" with regard to residency.

 

[XRTboy]

This is just a bump up for this thread. Last year, several of us really starting adding to this thread s/p match day. We tried to comment on programs we knew about from personal expereince and not just urban legend. We tried to give more than just Stanford rules or Stanford sucks. We tried to give basic pros and cons about programs and reasons for them. All of this is obviously subjective, but I think it is still very worthwhile.

I thought it would have been helpful to have something like this when I was applying. Unfortunately, I didn't, but I felt that I had gained some insight from the match process and thought dispensing some of it on this forum might be helpful to those of you who applied this year. I spent a great deal of time on some of my posts so that they might be helpful to others. I hope it was not a waste of time for you all.

Those of you who have just applied this year are a tremendous resource to those who will follow after after you. Many of you have great insights about the process and about specific programs. If you can share some of those thoughts on this thread, then you will really be helping others.

Thanks,

XRTboy

 

[music710]

I'll contribute. Definitely, I learned a lot from reading this particular thread, and am thankful for all who posted about their thoughts previously.

Let's see (I'm NOT ranking the programs below):

A. Stanford: awesome technology (Varian - a major maker of rad onc equipment, is local so Stanford gets to try out the latest toys). awesome basic research, and clinical research. Strong at peds, which is not true for the majority of programs out there. The PD is not only very well known and respected in the field, but also comes to bat for residents. The chair is also very well known. Brand new cancer center, which is supposed to open this month. Reputedly, low on teaching, but this may be in the process of being corrected. Can you beat California weather?

B. UCSF: the other Bay area program. As previously posted, great reputation. However, I was not impressed when I visited. I got the sense that the teaching is almost non-existent there -- very little formal didactics, and even one-to-one teaching from attendings working in clinic is not great. But many still consider it a "top 5" program by reputation.

C. Michigan: a great all-around program, with strong biology and physics and clinical research, great didactics, great hospital. The chair is the current ASTRO president, so is very well known. Weak on brachytherapy, but supposedly this is being corrected. I was told that in the last 5 years of resident grads, all but maybe 1 went into academics -- all got top jobs (so if you are thinking private practice, this may not be encouraged at Michigan). The downside may be that internship is included, and is supposedly a pretty hard-core medical internship. Ann Arbor is a great little city with a lot more culture than I previously expected.

D. Duke: the reputation that Duke is low on technology is true. Their previous chair did not believe in spending lots of money on unproven toys, but this is changing with the new chair onboard who is even talking proton. But how fast will this technology deficit correct no one knows. Very strong cancer center, which probably draws a good variety of pts from surroundings. Strong research, but perhaps best-known for hyperthermia -- which most places have discarded as a major modality of therapy. Residents take physics and biology classes together with the UNC residents, with rotating lecturers from both institutions -- which is nice. Residents can do research at Duke, UNC, or anywhere in research triangle - so a lot of opportunities there. Used to have a malignant reputation as a residency program, but I did not get that sense when I visited.

E. Harvard: an incredible program combining major hospitals of MGH, Brigham, Dana-Farber, Beth Israel, and Boston Children's Hospital -- with famous faculty in every disease system: Harris and Recht in breast, Loeffler in CNS, D'Amico in GU, Choi in lung... the amount of research in all of these institutions combined is hard to fathom. Good formal didactics -- apparently, Cleveland Clinic is also known for good didactics, and their chair came from Harvard and brought over the teaching system. As previously stated, the program heavily emphasizes academic careers, and residents who choose private practice are ostracized. But for those who are sure about going into academics, you will get the top jobs after finishing residency.

whew. need a break. Hope others chip in as well!

 

[june015b]

I will also add U of Pittsburgh to the current list. My programs director ranked that program in the top titer.

 

[stephew]

I will also add U of Pittsburgh to the current list. My programs director ranked that program in the top titer.

Id say Pitt's major strength is their stereotactic program.

 

[Thaiger75]

I will also add U of Pittsburgh to the current list. My programs director ranked that program in the top titer.

Pitt is a pretty new residency program (about 3-4 years old), though it's rad onc department is well established. I was impressed with the program when I interviewed there. In terms of residency programs, time will tell if it produces top notch residents.

 

[JTradonc]

For info about the U. of Utah program visit the Radbio.net forums at http://radbio.net


-Tward

 

[COhiker]

Although I agree with comments regarding the limited value of such lists, I thought I would post some names (in no particular order) I was given by a PD and an attending.

*Indicates both individuals listed this school in the same tier

Tier 1:
MSK*
Michigan*
UCSF*
Penn*
Harvard*
MD Anderson*
Stanford
Chicago

Tier 2:
Stanford
Yale*
NCI*
UNC
Duke*
WashU
U of Washington
Chicago
UCLA
Hopkins
Beaumont
Florida
Mayo
Cleveland Clinic
Colorado
Jeff
FCCC
Vanderbilt
Georgetown

Tier 3:
Jeff
FCCC
Florida
Colorado
CWRU
Wisconsin
Columbia
MCV
"everywhere else"

On direct questioning, both stated that this "rankings" were based on factors including reputation of faculty, research, facilities, and equiptment. I find it very interesting that these do not always match up with what would-be residents are clearly looking for (as discussed above in great detail).

Anyway, I think it's difficult to draw real conclusions from lists like these but it is a place to start I guess.

 

[Thaiger75]

Different people will obviously have different opinions on definitions of tiers. You can break it down to tier-systems into academic/research or strength of clinical training. Most people I find tend to divide based on academic/research. I agree with the above top tier list, but have a problem with the other end of the spectrum. Wisconsin, for one, is far from a bottom tier. Some say only the top 5 or so are the top tier, but I tend to think top tier should be the top 15 or 20 programs (the top gun programs of course are within the top 10). I think this spreads the field out more (e.g. "everywhere else" should not be on par with Wisconsin or Jeff). The 2nd tier programs all offer excellent clinical programs plus good academic research going on, then you have 3rd tier ones that are purely clinically oriented. And I guess for those programs that you would rather not be stuck in could go below even that.

 

[COhiker]

The "everywhere else" comment came from the PD who I believe just thought of things in two tiers. Clearly it's completely unhelpful and is emblematic of the fact that the person was unfamiliar with a wide range of programs. I feel that a single read-through of this board provided significantly more high yield information for a prospective applicant than the two lists above. That said, it is good to have what amounts to an "attending's eye view" of how programs compare.

 

[stephew]

The "everywhere else" comment came from the PD who I believe just thought of things in two tiers. Clearly it's completely unhelpful and is emblematic of the fact that the person was unfamiliar with a wide range of programs. I feel that a single read-through of this board provided significantly more high yield information for a prospective applicant than the two lists above. That said, it is good to have what amounts to an "attending's eye view" of how programs compare.

was this a PhD of rad onc rankings? English? Enlightenment Poetry?

 

[chazie]

Dr. Woo is the new director of the brand new multi-million dollar Proton Therapy Center of MD Anderson. He was the only person they interviewed for the position because he is a rad onc baller. Dr. Brian Butler will be the new chair at Baylor. Nice guy. Dr. Cox really is a legend.

 

[stephew]

Although I agree with comments regarding the limited value of such lists, I thought I would post some names (in no particular order) I was given by a PD and an attending.

*Indicates both individuals listed this school in the same tier

Tier 1:
MSK*
Michigan*
UCSF*
Penn*
Harvard*
MD Anderson*
Stanford
Chicago

Tier 2:
Stanford
Yale*
NCI*
UNC
Duke*
WashU
U of Washington
Chicago
UCLA
Hopkins
Beaumont
Florida
Mayo
Cleveland Clinic
Colorado
Jeff
FCCC
Vanderbilt
Georgetown

Tier 3:
Jeff
FCCC
Florida
Colorado
CWRU
Wisconsin
Columbia
MCV
"everywhere else"

QUOTE]

there are a few things that Id take exception with. I will say that U wisc should be bumped much higher up and quite a few need sinking down from all three "tiers".

 

[adkfanatic]

Do you think FCCC deserves sinking down? Any other comments on other programs that deserve to be ranked higher or lower on this list?

 

[stephew]

Do you think FCCC deserves sinking down? Any other comments on other programs that deserve to be ranked higher or lower on this list?

for starters, id move standford, mayo and U wisc up.

 

[MarkMarkMark]

Move U Wisc, Florida up and Georgetown down.

 

[radoncadonk]

what do people think of this program's reputation for having faculty that are so "hands off". it seems like people keep saying that a lot of the learning is left for the residents to do, they don't get much guidance, and all that...

how much does this really affect the quality of the education? for example, many people consider it a top 5 program, but is it worth ranking other programs higher just because of this factor.

i know all that bologne about "it's a style thing", "whichever works better for you", but at some point it has to go one way or another.

input before wednesday would be much more helpful and relevant of course

 

[RadOncFever]

what do people think of this program's reputation for having faculty that are so "hands off". it seems like people keep saying that a lot of the learning is left for the residents to do, they don't get much guidance, and all that...

how much does this really affect the quality of the education? for example, many people consider it a top 5 program, but is it worth ranking other programs higher just because of this factor.

i know all that bologne about "it's a style thing", "whichever works better for you", but at some point it has to go one way or another.

input before wednesday would be much more helpful and relevant of course

Personally I wasn't all that impressed about the program. Sure there are big names there and it has a reputation, but maybe it is hinging more on past reputation. The residents there are all very good and can certainly get away with being very independent learners. But the atmosphere was so apathetic and unexciting since the faculty has very little interests in the residents, unlike a place like MDA and elsewhere where you really sense that you matter and your contribution makes a difference. There was good comraderie between the residents, however. Since I enjoy working closely with faculty for mentorship, I don't find the kind of environment at UCSF enjoyable to stay for 4 years. Of course staying in SF sure balances the negatives of the program for some people, but I personally didn't care for SF that much (too pricey living standard). I would rank a place like Stanford, Hopkins, MDA, Beaumont before UCSF anyday (leaving out the geographic preferences).

 

[allopathic]

Your point on UCSF is well taken.
Any thoughts on how you would compare MDA vs Stanford?

 

[Ehrman]

Both of these are great programs and you couldn't go wrong either way. I will provide my percieved strengths and weaknesses of each:

MDACC- Huge department with the most distinguished faculty anywhere. Amazing technology with proton facility set to open when we would be starting. Morning conference (planning clinic) focuses on the relevant radiation literature and is attended by at least 2/3 of the department. Great didactics. Residents are highly motivated and are well trained in presenting their research and certainly outshine others at national conferences (ASTRO, ASCO, etc). Highest clinical volume of any department (~450 patients on treatment). Excellent basic science and clinical research. Lots of PAs and nursing support staff, keeping scut to a minimum. No real weaknesses. Some people might feel lost in such a huge department (40-45 attendings) or be turned off by the city. But honestly, Houston is not a bad place especially when considering the strength of the program.

Stanford- Also a great place. Much smaller than Anderson. One of the birthplaces of Radiation Oncology (Kaplan and Bagshaw). Beautiful new cancer center and top-tier technology (owed largely to relationship with Varian which is based out of nearby Mountain View, CA). Great basic science research with several physician scientists in department. Very strong at Lymphoma and Peds (two often underrepresented disease types). Great opportunities for employment in academia or private practice after graduation. Faculty seem interested in teaching and mentoring residents. Does not participate heavily with the RTOG... but as a resident, that is not a significant concern. Beautiful location, but very expensive.

Again, both of these places are phenomenal. You would not be limiting yourself by training at either place. My advice would be to find the place that is the best fit for your personality. Hope this helps-

Ehrman

 

[RadOncFever]

Both of these are great programs and you couldn't go wrong either way. I will provide my percieved strengths and weaknesses of each:

MDACC- Huge department with the most distinguished faculty anywhere. Amazing technology with proton facility set to open when we would be starting. Morning conference (planning clinic) focuses on the relevant radiation literature and is attended by at least 2/3 of the department. Great didactics. Residents are highly motivated and are well trained in presenting their research and certainly outshine others at national conferences (ASTRO, ASCO, etc). Highest clinical volume of any department (~450 patients on treatment). Excellent basic science and clinical research. Lots of PAs and nursing support staff, keeping scut to a minimum. No real weaknesses. Some people might feel lost in such a huge department (40-45 attendings) or be turned off by the city. But honestly, Houston is not a bad place especially when considering the strength of the program.

Stanford- Also a great place. Much smaller than Anderson. One of the birthplaces of Radiation Oncology (Kaplan and Bagshaw). Beautiful new cancer center and top-tier technology (owed largely to relationship with Varian which is based out of nearby Mountain View, CA). Great basic science research with several physician scientists in department. Very strong at Lymphoma and Peds (two often underrepresented disease types). Great opportunities for employment in academia or private practice after graduation. Faculty seem interested in teaching and mentoring residents. Does not participate heavily with the RTOG... but as a resident, that is not a significant concern. Beautiful location, but very expensive.

Again, both of these places are phenomenal. You would not be limiting yourself by training at either place. My advice would be to find the place that is the best fit for your personality. Hope this helps-

Ehrman

That's totally right. Training-wise, both places are great, maybe MDACC being slightly better because the immense opportunities to do research of ANY type, simply not enough residents to do the number of available projects. One resident after first year already had 3 pubs with more ongoing. Incredible. Stanford maybe a bit better in terms of basic science research by faculty outside the department. The other factors of course is living. Palo Alto is truly amazing in terms of climate and proximity to the beach, but maybe a bit boring for a single person. Also very very (and did I say, VERY) expensive. So look to rent for sure. There are some faculty there still renting. In Houston, it's a big city feel and lots to do, esp fun for single people. Great sports and night life. And dirt cheap. You can own a very nice house on resident salary. But you have to deal with Houston weather (hot and muggy and at times big storms off the Gulf).

 

[RadOnc10000]

Your point on UCSF is well taken.
Any thoughts on how you would compare MDA vs Stanford?

These are two of the elite Radiation Oncology programs. You can't go wrong matching at either, as you should be able to get a top private practice or academic job of your choice. It really comes down to the intangibles such as: Do you like a bigger or smaller program? Where would you rather live? Do you have family reasons to prefer one or the other? Are you interested in a certain aspect of research (clinical or basic) that is stronger at one of the two?

As far as locale goes, Stanford definitely has the upper hand. You can't beat living in the Bay Area, with it's proximity to beaches, state & national parks, Lake Tahoe, San Fran, etc. If you don't like Palo Alto, you could even live in San Francisco, as I know of Stanford residents in other specialties who do this. The big downside is that you probably won't be able to afford to buy a house (unless you are independently wealthy or can get help from family & friends).

If you are in a position to choose between these two programs, you're more than set.

 

[radoncadonk]

Personally I wasn't all that impressed about the program. Sure there are big names there and it has a reputation, but maybe it is hinging more on past reputation. The residents there are all very good and can certainly get away with being very independent learners. But the atmosphere was so apathetic and unexciting since the faculty has very little interests in the residents, unlike a place like MDA and elsewhere where you really sense that you matter and your contribution makes a difference. There was good comraderie between the residents, however. Since I enjoy working closely with faculty for mentorship, I don't find the kind of environment at UCSF enjoyable to stay for 4 years. Of course staying in SF sure balances the negatives of the program for some people, but I personally didn't care for SF that much (too pricey living standard). I would rank a place like Stanford, Hopkins, MDA, Beaumont before UCSF anyday (leaving out the geographic preferences).

wow, the picture looks pretty bleak for SF. would you guys rank it lower than even places such as yale, wash u., duke, chicago, etc.? seems like these are considered middle tear, but pretty good education.

 

[Ehrman]

U of Chicago is certainly, in my opinion, above the middle tier. Very famous chairman and vice chair and unmatched opportunities for basic science research (Chairman is one of the premier physician scientists in all of oncology). Also, the morning conference on Mondays, is among the best teaching conferences that I have ever seen. Very strong in head and neck and IMRT. Former residents are now faculty at major academic centers all over the country. Chicago is well established and I consider it in the group with UCSF.

Wash U also deserves higher consideration. Very distinguished history. Historically had malignant reputation, but that is changing. Department was well represented at ASTRO this fall. I did not apply to this program, so I cannot provide anything more specific.

If I were you, I would seriously consider all of the programs mentioned on this thread, as they are all strong and will not limit your career opportunities.

Ehrman

 

[Ehrman]

Two other places, that I forgot in my last post, but should be considered in this group are University of Florida and University of Michigan.

 

[radoncadonk]

Two other places, that I forgot in my last post, but should be considered in this group are University of Florida and University of Michigan.

ehrman, thanks for your responses. you seem to have good knowledge of the field. let me ask you then, what do you think of yale? where would you put it in the mix?

 

[Michael Spiker]

ehrman, thanks for your responses. you seem to have good knowledge of the field. let me ask you then, what do you think of yale? where would you put it in the mix?

I am not sure if Yale belongs to this top group. The place doesn't seem so organized, and the residents cover two satelite offices that are 45 mins away. Furthermore, they are losing Bruce Haffty, who was a prolific academician.

Now that we are asking about various programs, how did you guys like U of Wisconsin? I thought it was a complete program without any obvious faults. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[RadOncFever]

I am not sure if Yale belongs to this top group. The place doesn't seem so organized, and the residents cover two satelite offices that are 45 mins away. Furthermore, they are losing Bruce Haffty, who was a prolific academician.

Now that we are asking about various programs, how did you guys like U of Wisconsin? I thought it was a complete program without any obvious faults. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

U. Wisconsin is definitely in the top tier. It's a good program that is still rising in its national reputation. Good technology with good basic science research. Remember Tomotherapy was developed there so it's premeire place to be involved in research with such technology. Living in Madison, Wisconsin, may not be choice for some, however (unless you are into ice fishing during the winter time).

 

[Ehrman]

ehrman, thanks for your responses. you seem to have good knowledge of the field. let me ask you then, what do you think of yale? where would you put it in the mix?

I did not look at Yale, so I have little to offer beyond what the above poster said. Yale was represented at ASTRO and certainly has some well-known faculty.

I agree that Wisconsin is indeed a great program. Great technology and research opportunities. Program is definitely on the rise. Not yet a top tier by reputation, but remember that current reputation is often based on the quality of the department five years ago. By the end of our residency, I suspect that Wisconsin will be almost universally considered a top ten program.

Here are a list of other programs that I was impressed with, and felt were moving up in terms of the strength of the department and residency training program. Most already have great reputations, but still seem to be aggressively moving in a positive direction:

Fox Chase
UAB
Wake Forest
Johns Hopkins
Maryland
Colorado

 

[sammie]

Here is a list of program descriptions from a previuos thread


http://forums.studentdoctor.net/sho...?t=42456&page=1

 

[sammie]

Here is a list of program descriptions from a previuos thread

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=42456&page=1

 

[kryptonite]

To add my 2 cents: I think 2-3 years ago, one could have made a legitmate argument saying that UCSF radiation oncology residency was "better" than Stanford's. However, I think in the current state of things, the tide has certainly turned in favor of Stanford. These factors include: (1) The opening of Stanford's new Comprehensive cancer center, (2) Steve Leibel (former chair of MSKCC radiation oncology department) as the Director of the new cancer center,(3) improved didactics for residents with formal lectures, case discussion (new patient conference) due to the current program director and previous/senior residents, (4) the cutting edge technology (currently 5 LINACS, 1 cyberknife radiosurgery, HDR, IORT, and the Triology (already in the department, soon to be operational), and another cyberknife (soon to be installed, (5) stability of the Chair at Stanford.

That said, all in all, I believe that residents in both programs are generally happy. Both are in the bay area (i.e. great location to live). Perhaps the only edge right now ucsf has above stanford is its location in the city (if one prefers to live in the city of course). However, San Francisco is not a long drive from Palo Alto, and many people hang out in the city on the weekends from Stanford, and/or live in the city.

 

[stephew]

locking and linking to original thread
tp://forums.studentdoctor.net/sho...?t=42456&page=1

 

[deleted4401]

Hey,

That rankings list that was started a few years ago was awesome, but is heavily in favor of the top/research heavy programs. I found that even on the internet, it was hard to find out about different programs and curriculums How about we get some narrative reviews of the middle of the pack programs, now that the rank list deadline is over? I'll start with one ...

DMC/Karmanos - so, there's basically 4 major rad onc programs in the Detroit area - 2 are world class (Beaumont and UMich), and 2 are a little lesser known (Ford and DMC), but still solid programs. The DMC is the major county medical center of Detroit. It's compromised of many hospitals - Receiving, Harper, Hutzel, Karmanos Cancer Center, Children's. The DMC rad-onc program is finally on a course. They've had a chair now for some town - Dr. Turrisi (formerly of MUSC), who is a very charismatic, high-energy, resident-friendly man, with a ton of ideas. He was the only chair that I met that spoke to the interview group at length about his his vision, and it looks like they can only go up. The faculty, according to residents, is somewhat limited in their teaching duties, and many have their own private stuff in the community. There are suburban clinics that are part of the program, and they are way out there - 45 minutes to an hour outside of Detroit (I think that's maybe 3-4 months or so). They have a dedicated Children's hospital, and I believe Beaumont does their peds month at DMC, now (they used to go to UMich). They do a lot of gyn brachy stuff (makes sense, it's a county hospital). Their physics is good - they brought in the folks from Grey's Lab in England, Dr. Mike Joiner, and they really want the residents to get more involved on the bench side. They have good technology - nothing really lacking, b/c the Karmanos Foundation has tons of money. The residents are nice - all guys, joked around a lot, and they seemed to be buddies - saw a few at a conference last weekend. They all pass their boards. I think the last two grads, one went private in suburban Chicago, one went to U of F, so they aren't limited to the midwest. The majority of the hospitals are in a, to an outsider, pretty scary area. Being a native, I defend Detroit a lot, and I really think it's getting better, but I think that's the subject of another post. You can easily live for cheap in either Downtown on the riverfront, or in an outlying "hip" suburb (Birmingham, Royal Oak, Ferndale, etc.) and drive 20 min - 1 hour.

The one thing that makes me nervous is that Karmanos in splitting off of DMC/Wayne State due to financial reasons (basically, every dollar that is profited in the private cancer center is spent on charity care in the public hospitals). They were quite nebulous on what this meant for the residency and the residents. Everyone said not to worry about it. That makes me worry.

 

[stephew]

Im going to link this with the orignal list since I think the posts will verge back and forther between "top 10" and non top 10 programs.
Addendum: Tommasieblue is long gone but his thread lingers on. Ive mereged two recent threads here as I think its useful and helps to keep topics consolodated. Enjoy.

 

[RexKD]

Herman is triple-board certified in Internal Med, Med Onc, and Rad Onc. The vice-chairman, Dr. Thomas, is also triple board certified. Half of all the residents are board certified in Internal medicine, and he doesn't hide his wishes to see his candidates having similar credentials. But I think that has changed recently.

S.A. is a good program. They just recently finished expanding their facilities. I think they have 6 linacs. Can anyone verify that? Plus their faculty is up and coming. There's one guy that does good brachy.

Triple board certified??? Do you mean he completed 3 residency programs and then passed the boards?

 

[Thaiger75]

Triple board certified??? Do you mean he completed 3 residency programs and then passed the boards?

That would be 2 residencies in IM and rad onc and 1 fellowship (after IM) in Heme/Onc. Shiao Woo, now at MDA, is another triple threat (IM or Peds...can't quite remember, Heme/Onc, Rad Onc).

 

[UHS05]

Just out of curiosity, what is the general perception of Fox Chase? I ranked it number one after rotating and interviewing at some programs touted a lot more earlier in this thread...because under Dr. Pollack's leadership, it has become the premier rad-onc institute in Philly for prostate at least (as I was led to believe by patients from all over the east coast that were flocking there). Just curious as to why its not mentioned more...is it because its not a big academic institution (I believe rad-onc might be the only residency there)...even though their basic science research and medical oncology departments are actually very good.

Any thoughts???

Im going to link this with the orignal list since I think the posts will verge back and forther between "top 10" and non top 10 programs.
Addendum: Tommasieblue is long gone but his thread lingers on. Ive mereged two recent threads here as I think its useful and helps to keep topics consolodated. Enjoy.