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.
Members don't see this ad.
Bonner must be intimately aware, as he is Canadian... that market is only now starting to return to any sense of decency. They did Zietman approach where people just stopped selecting RO as a specialty.
 
ROFallingDown said:
Bonner must be intimately aware, as he is Canadian... that market is only now starting to return to any sense of decency. They did Zietman approach where people just stopped selecting RO as a specialty.
Click to expand...

The zeitman approach is the do nothing approach. THe approach you should have taken was the coordinated refusal to train more residents and utilize the acgme to stop new approvals and take a hardball approach with their respective institutions but alas doctors are cheap nowadays and docile as they’ve ever been despite all the saber rattling about sexism and racism in the work place.
 
evilbooyaa said:
Gotta give it to him, he's a die hard. Others have shown some signs of thinking maybe SDN is right, on some issues, at least at some proportion of the time. I do love how he feels intimately qualified to discuss the topic as a junior resident who has not gone through the job search. Perhaps he will learn next year that it's not all sunshine and flowers.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the kool-aid is too good to put down!
 
RadsWFA1900 said:
The zeitman approach is the do nothing approach. THe approach you should have taken was the coordinated refusal to train more residents and utilize the acgme to stop new approvals and take a hardball approach with their respective institutions but alas doctors are cheap nowadays and docile as they’ve ever been despite all the saber rattling about sexism and racism in the work place.
Click to expand...
Problem with zeitman approach in the us is that there is an infinite supply of fmgs who programs can always select from. If medicine were a field like dentistry that makes it very difficult to recognize fmgs etc, it could work. Even if radoncs involved an infinite amount of fellowships, you would still get fmgs to fill residencies.
I appreciate zeitman for tactfully raising this issue 5 years ago.but solution is plain stupid.
 
Yeah, it worked there because they don’t really take FMGs in Canada. They hardly take any (if any at all) Canadians that trained abroad, unless its US medical school.

RickyScott said:
Problem with zeitman approach in the us is that there is an infinite supply of fmgs who programs can always select from. If medicine were a field like dentistry that makes it very difficult to recognize fmgs etc, it could work. Even if radoncs involved an infinite amount of fellowships, you would still get fmgs to fill residencies.
I appreciate zeitman for tactfully raising this issue 5 years ago.but solution is plain stupid.
Click to expand...
 
ROFallingDown said:
Yeah, it worked there because they don’t really take FMGs in Canada. They hardly take any (if any at all) Canadians that trained abroad, unless its US medical school.
Click to expand...
evilbooyaa said:
Gotta give it to him, he's a die hard. Others have shown some signs of thinking maybe SDN is right, on some issues, at least at some proportion of the time. I do love how he feels intimately qualified to discuss the topic as a junior resident who has not gone through the job search. Perhaps he will learn next year that it's not all sunshine and flowers.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, when the editor of the red journal is referring to medstudents as "canaries in a coal mine" and bringing up fellowships in syphilis, ..... not legitimate to completely dismiss concerns of SDN.
 
theMednet - Login

SDN's favorite resident/wunderkind pontificating yet again against standard-of-care medical practice... this time against CT contrast precautions. I'm sure he's practiced long enough to have developed these opinions on his own after many years of carefully deviating from the standard of care with his patients to determine what's really safe based on evidence.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
"lol whatever, protons4lyfe" - Nancy Lee
Click to expand...
In interest of being intellectually honest, and someone who has had to implement contrast in our system, I agree with his post. Do resent that he is so outspoken and obviously wrong about resident supply. Aren’t mdacc and Harvard reducing spots by 1 each. Does he believe he knows better and these programs are making mistake from his point of view, since there is nothing wrong with the status quo?
 
Last edited:
ROFallingDown said:
It’s not the substance of the post, it’s the “I’m smarter than everybody” mentality.

(He is right about the contrast)
Click to expand...

Yep. The point about over-worrying with regards to contrast-induced AKI has some merit, certainly. However, it's the brazen in-your-face-ness that's the issue here. Making broad, sweeping recommendations/generalizations based off one's own (limited) experience on an expert forum. Saying things as a resident about how you are redesigning "our" clinic, etc.

It's all of these things put together, and the general sense of being gods-gift-to-everything-that-is-radiation-oncology that are not going to end well for this guy.

A little bit of humility goes a long way. Like I alluded to before, the best knowledge you can have is the knowledge of what you don't know. I don't know anything about Alabama, but I'd be curious if there have been... "issues." Just a hunch.
 
Certainly true. When your ass is on the line because you pushed through a change in contrast policy, you approach risks differently. (You can also be blamed for adverse effects that may not really have been due to the contrast!) this is the part of implementing a policy in which a bit of humilty would go a long way.
 
ROFallingDown said:
It’s not the substance of the post, it’s the “I’m smarter than everybody” mentality.

(He is right about the contrast)
Click to expand...

i think everyone on same page about his arrogance. the guy didn't match into rad onc on his first try for a reason.
 
xrthopeful said:
i think everyone on same page about his arrogance. the guy didn't match into rad onc on his first try for a reason.
Click to expand...
Hesitate to make this too personal, but status
anxiety is going to be most damning in that kind of person. Imagine the cognitive dissonance of reconciling a very high opinion of yourself with being in such an uncompetitive field. Would be tempting to reduce the dissonance by denying that the field was in free fall. Sorry for the free style psychobabble, but only way to explain denying the obvious.
 
The resident is correct. Here's to those who are blessed with the gift of constant correctness. Here's to residents who change departmental policies, too. He's the best. But you know what'd be nice? If insurance and CMS would pay rad onc for contrasted scans like it pays radiology for contrasted scans. The contrast ain't cheap, and as we all know CMS doesn't even pay for simulations for 3DCRT or IMRT anymore. And as the resident alludes to, it (a contrast sim) does require more MD work and worry. Most insurances have followed suit w/ CMS's no-payment-for-sim policy unfortunately.

So you gotta ask. Is the contrast vital? I used to say yes. Now I'm not so sure anymore. A.I. contouring programs don't need contrast AFAIK. And radiologists can read CTs OK without them (when patient has a contrast contraindication) even though the radiologist complains. I like to think I'm at least as capable as an always-correct resident, a radiologist, or an A.I. contouring program heh. When one factors in PET/CT fusion, the ability to fuse outside contrast CTs, and the ability to fuse MRIs, the necessity to do contrast has become less and less (even in H&N e.g.). I find that contrast is nice, but I doubt its lack has clinical impacts on toxicity, LC, survival, etc. And it has some departmental financial toxicity as mentioned. And the way I operate I guess I'll have a 0% contrast toxicity rate in my patients, and that's without arguing with anybody in my department or checking Cr clearance etc.
 
PhotonBomb said:
You don’t need contrast except head and neck. Not that you NEED it for head and neck obviously but it Helps a lot. Doesn’t help in most other sites Imo
Click to expand...
It is an absolute nightmare contouring a post-op HN without contrast. Probably the biggest pain to contour other than a mesothelioma...
 
FrostyHammer said:
It is an absolute nightmare contouring a post-op HN without contrast. Probably the biggest pain to contour other than a mesothelioma...
Click to expand...
FrostyHammer said:
It is an absolute nightmare contouring a post-op HN without contrast. Probably the biggest pain to contour other than a mesothelioma...
Click to expand...
I trained on conventional sims and when ct sim debuted, even in big name places contrast was sparingly used for many years. Only site where I feel strongly about contrast is brain srs, because I have had fusion and target delineation changes
Based on contrast.
 
medgator said:
Click to expand...


I was about to rant about 3D vs IMRT on this paper given that their primary diagnoses were Head and Neck and Lung, but 93% of patients were treated with IMRT. At least interested to get away from protons for prostate for once. I think if protons do show benefit it will be in what are currently the most toxic treatments like H&N.
 
evilbooyaa said:
I was about to rant about 3D vs IMRT on this paper given that their primary diagnoses were Head and Neck and Lung, but 93% of patients were treated with IMRT. At least interested to get away from protons for prostate for once. I think if protons do show benefit it will be in what are currently the most toxic treatments like H&N.
Click to expand...
Real benefit for head and neck will come from dose deescalation, limiting volumes in elective treatment, treating ipsalateral neck only in tonsil when appropriate etc.

I woulndt assume protons are less toxic based purely on dose distributions. I have heard this from enough urologists now following salvage prostatectomies for xrt failure: a lot more fibrosis and damage with protons. They very well could be worse!
 
RickyScott said:
Real benefit for head and neck will come from dose deescalation, limiting volumes in elective treatment, treating ipsalateral neck only in tonsil when appropriate etc.

I woulndt assume protons are less toxic based purely on dose distributions. I have heard this from enough urologists now following salvage prostatectomies for xrt failure: a lot more fibrosis and damage with protons. They very well could be worse!
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming that to be the case. While this is certainly not the end-all be all, this is a signal that maybe protons decreases toxicity. H&N and lung were their most treated sites. I've heard H&N proton folks talk about treating bilateral necks and not seeing any oral mucositis in patients.

They're also comparing to an era where we didn't do any of those 3 things so maybe in a current era of decreasing elective volumes and dose it won't have the same benefit.
 
PhotonBomb said:
You don’t need contrast except head and neck. Not that you NEED it for head and neck obviously but it Helps a lot. Doesn’t help in most other sites Imo
Click to expand...

ummm... not sure I agree with this one. Sure, I have treated almost every site without contrast under less-than-ideal circumstances, but I like to know where the vessel/bowel/heart/soft tissue ends, and the tumor/LN begins
 
RickyScott said:
Real benefit for head and neck will come from dose deescalation, limiting volumes in elective treatment, treating ipsalateral neck only in tonsil when appropriate etc.

I woulndt assume protons are less toxic based purely on dose distributions. I have heard this from enough urologists now following salvage prostatectomies for xrt failure: a lot more fibrosis and damage with protons. They very well could be worse!
Click to expand...

Have heard the same from a high volume surgeon who does a fair amount of salvage RP
 
evilbooyaa said:
I'm not assuming that to be the case. While this is certainly not the end-all be all, this is a signal that maybe protons decreases toxicity. H&N and lung were their most treated sites. I've heard H&N proton folks talk about treating bilateral necks and not seeing any oral mucositis in patients.

They're also comparing to an era where we didn't do any of those 3 things so maybe in a current era of decreasing elective volumes and dose it won't have the same benefit.
Click to expand...
Well I am concerned that biologically protons are worse and am worried about signals of increased toxicity. Not many centers do post xrt prostatectomies, but have heard from now 2-3 urologists and docs who work with them that fibrosis from protons is so much worse. (Wouldn’t expect this from dose distribution) also, again have seen almost no late rectal bleeding in prostate over my career that requires laser/coag yet it is something you encounter with protons despite fact that they all use spacers or balloons, and I Don’t. In the jco lung study, trend towards worse survival with protons? Not sure how this will play out, but really wouldn’t surprise me if they are worse. Out of curiosity would like to hear from residents at large centers if they have also anecdotally heard that salvage surgeries after proton treatment encounter more fibrosis as this would be a concern with head and neck.
 
evilbooyaa said:
I'm not assuming that to be the case. While this is certainly not the end-all be all, this is a signal that maybe protons decreases toxicity. H&N and lung were their most treated sites. I've heard H&N proton folks talk about treating bilateral necks and not seeing any oral mucositis in patients.

They're also comparing to an era where we didn't do any of those 3 things so maybe in a current era of decreasing elective volumes and dose it won't have the same benefit.
Click to expand...
Even ptv/CTv expansions have changed over past 10 yrs. look at Nancy lee and cliff chao examples from 10-15 yrs ago....
Very rarely need peg anymore - Partly less toxicity and partly because best evidence from rtog is that weight loss/poor nutrition leads to better local control.
 
Last edited:
Drew M really does not seem like a fun person to be around

read next few tweets as well

Loved to challenge ppl but does not like if you challenge him

 
I bet he and SDN's favorite resident high five a lot and "bro out". I think that means something, I'm just not sure what it means. And, I HIGHLY doubt that they eat biryani.
 
radoncdoc16 said:
Drew M really does not seem like a fun person to be around

read next few tweets as well

Loved to challenge ppl but does not like if you challenge him

Click to expand...

Never gets old
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200228_211119.jpg
    IMG_20200228_211119.jpg
    97.3 KB · Views: 246
RickyScott said:
Very rarely need peg anymore - Partly less toxicity and partly because best evidence from rtog is that weight loss/poor nutrition leads to better local control.
Click to expand...

What data was this from regarding weight los -> better LC? I wasn't aware of that.

I'd like to tell my recent patient who lost 60lbs it was in his best interest :laugh:
 
dieABRdie said:
What data was this from regarding weight los -> better LC? I wasn't aware of that.

I'd like to tell my recent patient who lost 60lbs it was in his best interest :laugh:
Click to expand...
There may be "something to this." There is reasonably interest-piquing data that the old wives' tale of "don't feed the tumor (sugar)" may be true. In a state of fasting, not only may the tumor be deprived of nutrients, the body will release "cachexin" as it becomes cachectic. Cachexin is more commonly known as tumor necrosis factor alpha... a thing that makes tumors, well, necrose.
 
Last edited:
radoncdoc16 said:
Drew M really does not seem like a fun person to be around

read next few tweets as well

Loved to challenge ppl but does not like if you challenge him

Click to expand...


I made the mistake of going down a rabbit hole with Drew Moghanaki's Twitter:


I literally have no idea what he is talking about, but based on the content of his tweets, he either has some type of psychopathological issue or he drinks too much late at night then tweets. Either way, Drew Moghanaki is a nutcase.
 
SubserviantToABR said:
I made the mistake of going down a rabbit hole with Drew Moghanaki's Twitter:


I literally have no idea what he is talking about, but based on the content of his tweets, he either has some type of psychopathological issue or he drinks too much late at night then tweets. Either way, Drew Moghanaki is a nutcase.
Click to expand...


It’s pretty sad actually. He will be remembered for this type of BS and his time will come where he will be held accountable. Had a chance to be one of the greats only to trash his reputation Bc of stubbornness.
 
dieABRdie said:
What data was this from regarding weight los -> better LC? I wasn't aware of that.

I'd like to tell my recent patient who lost 60lbs it was in his best interest :laugh:
Click to expand...
scarbrtj said:
There may be "something to this." There is reasonably interest-piquing data that the old wives' tale of "don't feed the tumor (sugar)" may be true. In a state of fasting, not only may the tumor be deprived of nutrients, the body will release "cachexin" as it becomes cachectic. Cachexin is more commonly known as tumor necrosis factor alpha... a thing that makes tumors, well, necrose.
Click to expand...

Pts with pegs may have had worse tumors but they tried to control for it. Pts who lost more weight had less local failure. Tumors really appreciate good nutrition. They love protein - mtor activation; and many can only utilize glycolysis not oxidative phosphyrlation (Warburg effect) which is why they show up on pet scan.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Impact of nutrition support on treatment outcome in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: a secondary analysis of RTOG trial 90-03 - PubMed

In this study, the largest prospective evaluation of nutrition data in treated patients with cancer, BNS was associated with inferior treatment outcome in the patients with HNSCC undergoing XRT. These results should be considered hypothesis generating and encourage prospective clinical research...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 
Last edited:
Haybrant said:
It’s pretty sad actually. He will be remembered for this type of BS and his time will come where he will be held accountable. Had a chance to be one of the greats only to trash his reputation Bc of stubbornness.
Click to expand...

It's remarkable to watch an otherwise intelligent individual behave like a complete assclown behind his own name and picture. What's going on in his head where he thinks good will come of this?
 
Does he do these messages in the evening or night? That may point to alcohol related behavior. I’ve also heard he’s not the most pleasant in real life.

Oh, and what do you mean “greats”? What has he done that would make you say he is great? Not that prolific publication-wise, and no big studies or anything practice changing (though, who is doing anything practice changing in our field?)
 
Aptamer said:
View attachment 297229

This particular portion of the exchange was late at night, but he does continue with the ridiculously annoying exchange with this physicists into the morning.

I, too, agree...I do not know what Drew Moghanaki has contributed to radiation oncology other than to be a brown-noser and pain in the butt on Twitter.
Click to expand...

he’s only relevant bc twitter ass kissing

there is a bunch of academic attendings (Esp lung) that literally loop each other in every possibility of which he is part of

on the other hand, VALOR is a good trial
 
ROFallingDown said:
Does he do these messages in the evening or night? That may point to alcohol related behavior. I’ve also heard he’s not the most pleasant in real life.

Oh, and what do you mean “greats”? What has he done that would make you say he is great? Not that prolific publication-wise, and no big studies or anything practice changing (though, who is doing anything practice changing in our field?)
Click to expand...

not many people do a bang up job of standing up to the bully surgeons and the holier than thou prolong life 1 month med oncs - drew does. That’s how Valor got through. Just have no idea how acting as a bully to younger gen (one that is on the correct side of history at that) benefits him one bit, like even a single ounce.
 
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
4
Views
488
alwaysbeIMRTing
A
Top