Rad Onc Twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted1002574
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
RealSimulD said:
Heard Penn
Click to expand...
Acgme still listing them at 18 resident positions, which is where they have been for at least the past several years. No idea how often/quickly they update those stats though.
 
fiji128 said:
Acgme still listing them at 18 resident positions, which is where they have been for at least the past several years. No idea how often/quickly they update those stats though.
Click to expand...
Someone's gotta sit in those proton centers to supervise patients during the graveyard shift!
 
Last edited:
medgator said:
Nothing like Rad Onc "expert" at asco telling us about PARP inhibitors....

Click to expand...

Honestly, I am much happier to see this kind of professional expansion. All of us will have to find some way to widen our horizons after all. Having him talking about PARP inhibitors is far superior than another "Analysis of Gender Norms and Discrimination in Native American Transgender Dosimetrists" or "Zero fractions are now appropriate for breast cancer" type studies
 
Gfunk6 said:
Honestly, I am much happier to see this kind of professional expansion. All of us will have to find some way to widen our horizons after all. Having him talking about PARP inhibitors is far superior than another "Analysis of Gender Norms and Discrimination in Native American Transgender Dosimetrists" or "Zero fractions are now appropriate for breast cancer" type studies
Click to expand...
His background is in the very science he is doing. If you look at what he has researched, this makes complete sense.

This one dimensional thinking is what leads to less innovation.

A transplant surgeon invented Abraxane. Thank goodness no one telling him to stay in his lane. He now owns the Lakers, incidentally.
 
medgator said:
Does he prescribe them? Gonna guess no. Could be wrong. Just seemed...odd.

I just think of the converse... Would we want a breast med onc at ASTRO telling us about a new 3-5 fx breast study?
Click to expand...
Wow. And I thought I as worried about the new folks. Lol, a basic scientist doing basic science and things, and he is called .. odd .. because he doesn’t prescribe them. Man, I guess we all should just only study things we as individuals will use ourselves. It’s one way to approach innovation, I suppose.

And, there are many non ROs that do radiation studies. Do you know the specialty of the first author of the CALGB study for elderly women with breast cancer? How about NSABP-B6?
 
RealSimulD said:
Wow. And I thought I as worried about the new folks. Lol, a basic scientist doing basic science and things, and he is called .. odd .. because he doesn’t prescribe them. Man, I guess we all should just only study things we as individuals will use ourselves. It’s one way to approach innovation, I suppose.

And, there are many non ROs that do radiation studies. Do you know the specialty of the first author of the CALGB study for elderly women with breast cancer? How about NSABP-B6?
Click to expand...
Is he prescribing the drug the way a gyn onc might in ovarian? That's where the needle will move for our specialty as a whole, becoming more "clinical onc" with prescribing oral and systemic therapy.

Otherwise it's a nice oddity to see i guess but isn't changing where we need to be heading as a specialty as a whole. Good for him though ending up at asco with it
 
salubalu said:
Who invented gamma knife and cyberknife again?
Click to expand...

Over It Monday GIF by Michelle Porucznik


To be fair though, Corey didn't invent parps did he?

It would be totally normal for the parp guy to talk to us at ASTRO about the latest apbi or proton data?
 
Last edited:
RealSimulD said:
Oddity is such a interesting way to describe someone doing work in their research area and then presenting it. And then, “do u even prescribe bro?” This is good stuffs!
Click to expand...
Agree. Narrow thinking.

NAM announced 100 fellows yesterday. I think Dr Glazer is the only RadOnc

Peter M. Glazer, MD, PhD, Robert E. Hunter Professor and chair, department of therapeutic radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. For discovering that tumor hypoxia causes genetic instability and that IDH1 mutations suppress DNA repair in cancers, conferring vulnerability to radiation and PARP inhibitors. He developed novel DNA repair inhibitors for cancer therapy and triplex-forming oligonucleotides for gene editing. His work led to multiple new clinical trials for cancer.
 
medgator said:
Nothing like Rad Onc "expert" at asco telling us about PARP inhibitors....

Click to expand...

I think it’s more “odd” that he’s studying a toxic intervention that yields no benefit in this population but is looking for better ways to manage the toxicity rather than a less toxic/more beneficial intervention.

Pharma going to pharma.
 
Last edited:
Mandelin Rain said:
I think it’s more “odd” that he’s studying a toxic intervention that yields no benefit in this population and is looking for better ways to manage the toxicity rather than a less toxic/more effective intervention.

Pharma going to pharma.
Click to expand...
This guy advocates ommitting radiation in early breast and poses as an expert on parp. Why is he in radonc?
Shouldnt he be a vocal advocate encouraging medstudents to stay clear of the field and go for medonc?
 
Come to think of it, a number of prostate “experts” purport to be thought leaders on adt despite the fact that they don’t administer it. Just curious if at a place like mdacc/mskcc, full of genitourinaryu meronc thought leaders, whether they give a f what the radonc feels about adt when it comes to treating their own pts?
 
RickyScott said:
In most large academic institutions, radonc had probably never set eyes on a vial of lupron.
Click to expand...
Nor have they ever placed fiducials. Had to pick those skills up quick along with the AAAs after leaving training. More growth that first year or two than in all of residency for many
 
I have about 5 separate urologist that refer to me in my area. They all do something different in terms of what they want to do or not in regards to fiducials, spacer gel and adt. I basically just go along with whatever their preference are so long as it’s reasonable.
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
Agree. Narrow thinking.

NAM announced 100 fellows yesterday. I think Dr Glazer is the only RadOnc

Peter M. Glazer, MD, PhD, Robert E. Hunter Professor and chair, department of therapeutic radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. For discovering that tumor hypoxia causes genetic instability and that IDH1 mutations suppress DNA repair in cancers, conferring vulnerability to radiation and PARP inhibitors. He developed novel DNA repair inhibitors for cancer therapy and triplex-forming oligonucleotides for gene editing. His work led to multiple new clinical trials for cancer.
Click to expand...
Big science in cancer therapeutics is a molecular game at this point. Short of inventing a completely novel (and more importantly, better) radiation, it's going to be molecular/cancer biology work that gets the job done. The vast majority of MD/PhDs from the 2005-2018 era did molecular work in graduate school. There is only a tangential relationship to their work and what clinical radiation oncologists do every day. Radonc departments were falling all over these folks in the past decade.

It's the Johns Hopkins Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular radiation sciences. It should be the Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular oncologic science.

They may throw an irradiated cell culture experiment or small animal radiation experiment in here or there, but it is really molecular oncology. The radiation has been a fairly peripheral part of radonc basic/transitional science work in many places for years.

With some exceptions, the career physician scientists are doing the right thing by de-emphasizing the XRT part.
 
communitydoc13 said:
Big science in cancer therapeutics is a molecular game at this point. Short of inventing a completely novel (and more importantly, better) radiation, it's going to be molecular/cancer biology work that gets the job done. The vast majority of MD/PhDs from the 2005-2018 era did molecular work in graduate school. There is only a tangential relationship to their work and what clinical radiation oncologists do every day. Radonc departments were falling all over these folks in the past decade.

It's the Johns Hopkins Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular radiation sciences. It should be the Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular oncologic science.

They may throw an irradiated cell culture experiment or small animal radiation experiment in here or there, but it is really molecular oncology. The radiation has been a fairly peripheral part of radonc basic/transitional science work in many places for years.

With some exceptions, the career physician scientists are doing the right thing by de-emphasizing the XRT part.
Click to expand...

I’m not entirely sure why they did that. Does it really make the department more prestigious when you have to ask yourself every time what the hell this has to do with radiation?

All it does is adds credence to the idea that one cannot survive in RT alone and you either should join medical oncology or radiology once and for all.
 
medgator said:
Nor have they ever placed fiducials. Had to pick those skills up quick along with the AAAs after leaving training. More growth that first year or two than in all of residency for many
Click to expand...
Rad onc should have owned fiducials.

Now they’re owning injecting the rectoprostatic gelz. Eh. That’s ok too I guess.
communitydoc13 said:
Big science in cancer therapeutics is a molecular game at this point. Short of inventing a completely novel (and more importantly, better) radiation, it's going to be molecular/cancer biology work that gets the job done. The vast majority of MD/PhDs from the 2005-2018 era did molecular work in graduate school. There is only a tangential relationship to their work and what clinical radiation oncologists do every day. Radonc departments were falling all over these folks in the past decade.

It's the Johns Hopkins Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular radiation sciences. It should be the Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular oncologic science.

They may throw an irradiated cell culture experiment or small animal radiation experiment in here or there, but it is really molecular oncology. The radiation has been a fairly peripheral part of radonc basic/transitional science work in many places for years.

With some exceptions, the career physician scientists are doing the right thing by de-emphasizing the XRT part.
Click to expand...
will be interesting to see how or if “molecular” dovetails with XRT. It sure hasn’t yet (despite our beautiful and great rad bio boards). “Molecular” treatments target the cell in very particular precise ways. XRT targets the cell and the cancer DNA completely and totally randomly; a cell one cell’s width away will have completely different XRT damage sites than its neighbor. Quite a challenge for rad onc(?).
 
Fpg1245 said:
I’m not entirely sure why they did that.
Click to expand...
The name is appropriate given the culture and history of that institution. This is not a place where Radonc was strong historically and it only achieved departmental status fairly recently (as opposed to a Stanford or MSKCC where radonc has historically been very influential). The emphasis on basic research at a place like JHH is huge, and this is where one can obtain status within the institution. Surgeons often have their own wet labs.

I have no doubt that the chair of the department of .....and molecular radiation sciences was aware that emphasizing basic molecular research within the department was going to be critical to the view of the department (and him) within the larger institution. (Now interim dean and CEO BTW).
 
communitydoc13 said:
Big science in cancer therapeutics is a molecular game at this point. Short of inventing a completely novel (and more importantly, better) radiation, it's going to be molecular/cancer biology work that gets the job done. The vast majority of MD/PhDs from the 2005-2018 era did molecular work in graduate school. There is only a tangential relationship to their work and what clinical radiation oncologists do every day. Radonc departments were falling all over these folks in the past decade.

It's the Johns Hopkins Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular radiation sciences. It should be the Department of Radiation Oncology and molecular oncologic science.

They may throw an irradiated cell culture experiment or small animal radiation experiment in here or there, but it is really molecular oncology. The radiation has been a fairly peripheral part of radonc basic/transitional science work in many places for years.

With some exceptions, the career physician scientists are doing the right thing by de-emphasizing the XRT part.
Click to expand...

All very true - so now those scientists should take away the façade of 0.5 radiation oncology clinic days per week and let the clinicians cliniche (?)

During match process, I was always frustrated at the academic/basic science "rockstar" MD/PhDs to compete with when ultimately we all knew who would be moving the meat in the treating patients category (all I really ever wanted to do)
 
communitydoc13 said:
The name is appropriate given the culture and history of that institution. This is not a place where Radonc was strong historically and it only achieved departmental status fairly recently (as opposed to a Stanford or MSKCC where radonc has historically been very influential). The emphasis on basic research at a place like JHH is huge, and this is where one can obtain status within the institution. Surgeons often have their own wet labs.

I have no doubt that the chair of the department of .....and molecular radiation sciences was aware that emphasizing basic molecular research within the department was going to be critical to the view of the department (and him) within the larger institution. (Now interim dean and CEO BTW).
Click to expand...

It would be nice if some of that research translated into you know actual stuff I can do for patients. Seems they’ve decoupled that process.
 
TheWallnerus said:
Rad onc should have owned fiducials.

Now they’re owning injecting the rectoprostatic gelz. Eh. That’s ok too I guess.
Click to expand...
Definitely an even split around here between gu and RO around here when it comes to placing the gel for those that fall in the pro gel camp
 
medgator said:
Definitely an even split around here between gu and RO around here when it comes to placing the gel for those that fall in the pro gel camp
Click to expand...

I mean this obviously varies. I’m at small academic place and I do my own lupron, I give darolutamide and apalutamide on GU 09/10. I do my own fiducials and spaceOAR. My colleagues thank me for this, they’re busy AF.
 
radiadouken said:
I mean this obviously varies. I’m at small academic place and I do my own lupron, I give darolutamide and apalutamide on GU 09/10. I do my own fiducials and spaceOAR. My colleagues thank me for this, they’re busy AF.
Click to expand...
Have seen GUs in large urorads practices do exactly that as well
 
metallica81788 said:
All very true - so now those scientists should take away the façade of 0.5 radiation oncology clinic days per week and let the clinicians cliniche (?)

During match process, I was always frustrated at the academic/basic science "rockstar" MD/PhDs to compete with when ultimately we all knew who would be moving the meat in the treating patients category (all I really ever wanted to do)
Click to expand...

I felt the same way. They would fawn all over them while they treat MDs with annoyance and contempt. It was nonsense. I came here to learn how to treat patients with radiation which the government pays you to ****ing do. I’ll put up with your garbage and do your stupid research projects but at the end of the day that’s the purpose for your entire existence.

If that’s just not enough for them then honestly they can go to hell.
 
Fpg1245 said:
I felt the same way. They would fawn all over them while they treat MDs with annoyance and contempt. It was nonsense. I came here to learn how to treat patients with radiation which the government pays you to ****ing do. I’ll put up with your garbage and do your stupid research projects but at the end of the day that’s the purpose for your entire existence.

If that’s just not enough for them then honestly they can go to hell.
Click to expand...
Big rad onc made their bed during peak rad Onc, now they can lay in it
 
Palex80 said:
Click to expand...

To the surprise of precisely no one:

"Conclusion
This multi-year quantitative assessment of the RO job market and graduates identified fewer job opportunities than graduates overall in most regions, most notably in the Northeast. Regional differences were seen between available job type (academic vs. non-academic) and population size (>1M vs. ≤1M). The findings are worrisome for trainee oversupply and geographic maldistribution. The number and distribution of RO trainees and residency programs across the United States should be evaluated to minimize job market imbalance for future graduates, promote workforce stability and continue to meet the future societal needs of cancer patients."
 
Lamount said:
Skimming through it, it doesn't seem like they pulled their punches. The question is... will it elicit change/contraction of residency spots, or will those in leadership who previously claimed to be "blissfully unaware" transition to being willfully ignorant
Click to expand...
"BUT BUT BUT...
ASTRO Career Boards aren't all the jobs, surely!"
 
medgator said:
Nothing like a Rad Onc "expert" at ASCO telling us about PARP inhibitors.... Looking forward to a breast med onc presenting the next APBI trial at ASTRO, oh wait...

Click to expand...


"Look, a negative Med Onc trial! Guess we need to just investigate which subset of patients would really benefit from this and try the trial again in that highest risk cohort. I'm sure there's some high-risk cohort we can find an effective point!" - A Rad Onc

"Look, a negative Rad Onc trial! (CRITICS, LAP-07, etc.) Time to NEVER do this again!" - Academic Rad Oncs, Med Oncs, Surg Oncs
 
evilbooyaa said:
"Look, a negative Med Onc trial! Guess we need to just investigate which subset of patients would really benefit from this and try the trial again in that highest risk cohort. I'm sure there's some high-risk cohort we can find an effective point!" - A Rad Onc

"Look, a negative Rad Onc trial! (CRITICS, LAP-07, etc.) Time to NEVER do this again!" - Academic Rad Oncs, Med Oncs, Surg Oncs
Click to expand...
Well done! Sums it up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uchihastan
Rad Onc vs. Heme/Onc
Replies
18
Views
2K
medgator
M
B
Rad Onc Procedures and RVUs
Replies
35
Views
5K
CurbYourExpectations
CurbYourExpectations
D
Saving Rad Onc
2
Replies
60
Views
7K
RickyScott
R
TheWallnerus
Rad Onc is in a dark place
Replies
13
Views
3K
RickyScott
R
M
Rad Onc Oral Boards: To quote or not quote studies?
Replies
3
Views
438
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
Top