Rads onc vs. IM

[neatomosquito]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey guys, here's my question:

I am interested in internal medicine and possibly rad onc. I really loved my IM rotation, but feel like IM is sort of the "default" specialty (i.e., I'm not totally sure I want to be a cardiologist/GI/endocrine doc yet, and fear that I'm just going into IM since it's a general field where I can have some time to figure things out).
Right now I love the general fund of knowledge at med school, but probably would one day like to specialize in something.

I don't know a ton about rad onc, but the few docs I know who do it are super happy people. They seem to have great patient interactions, amazing tech savvy, and a huge fund of knowledge. All in all, pretty baller people. My problem with rad onc at this point is that it would make me specialize at a point in my career when I'm not totally sure that I wouldn't love something else (cards/GI/etc).

From a practical standpoint, I am a strong applicant so I think I could match either IM or rad onc if need be.

Would love to hear people's opinions, or if they have had similar questions!
Thanks.

 

[officedepot]

.

 

[dd128]

I'd agree with depot.

In addition you need to make sure you are a competitive candidate. I knew a guy going into it this year, and a lot of programs apparently won't even interview you unless you have a Ph. D. This year there were 156 offered PGY2 positions and 15 categorical.

 

[FIREitUP]

I'd agree with depot.

In addition you need to make sure you are a competitive candidate. I knew a guy going into it this year, and a lot of programs apparently won't even interview you unless you have a Ph. D. This year there were 156 offered PGY2 positions and 15 categorical.

I find that hard to believe, but then again who knows.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I find that hard to believe, but then again who knows.

Don't know about the PhD part, but rad onc is crazy hard to get into. This year, a friend of mine didn't even match into rad onc, and he'd taken a year off to do rad onc research and was generally a baller med student. Not a weirdo either. Hard, hard specialty to match in.

Edit: Top 20 school with a strong rad onc department.

 

[FIREitUP]

Don't know about the PhD part, but rad onc is crazy hard to get into. This year, a friend of mine didn't even match into rad onc, and he'd taken a year off to do rad onc research and was generally a baller med student. Not a weirdo either. Hard, hard specialty to match in.

Edit: Top 20 school with a strong rad onc department.

no doubt, it's very competitive. But I feel that saying that a PhD is a requisite to match is a bit far fetched. Furthermore, while your friend is a great medical student, there are so many variables in the match that it could have been a myriad of different things that could have affected his chances.

 

[OneTyme]

I'd agree with depot.

In addition you need to make sure you are a competitive candidate. I knew a guy going into it this year, and a lot of programs apparently won't even interview you unless you have a Ph. D. This year there were 156 offered PGY2 positions and 15 categorical.

Here is a list of most programs with matched degrees and from where. More than 50% of people matched have only MD's and there are NO programs that only have MD/PhD matches. Therefore there aren't any that ONLY interview MD/PhD's.

I'm not saying it's an easy specialty to match into, because it's super freaking hard. But, being a MD/PhD is far from a necessity.

 

[Asp]

Rad onc is like family medicine / general outpatient IM / dermatology. It's basically clinic.

The only difference is that rad oncs can bill more than all the above, they read more papers on the toilet in the mornings, and they are more likely to be a PhD and do clinical research.

Rad onc is a lot more competitive than FM / IM but is it better? Yes. Is it worth getting a PhD for? No. Is it even worth taking a year off for? No.

This is an oversimplification but not by much.

 

[dd128]

I find that hard to believe, but then again who knows.

As did I. I questioned him profusely on it. It's completely anecdotal on his part, but it wasn't to say a Ph. D was a pre-req by any means (he didn't even have one). Just that being a physician scientist is what certain programs wanted, and would look much harder at those people with it.

 

[Mr RADical]

Rad Onc is a field that is not similar to FM/IM and I have never heard anyone compare them.

I agree. Having had multiple rotations in both fields I can say that these specialties (yes, technically FM is a specialty) are about as different as you can get while still being a physician.

Many students who are interested in cancer have to make the decision about which way they want to approach it (surgical onc/med onc/ rad onc). In the end it comes down to which you like more while rotating through. All are pretty competitive.

This can be tough because most people dont get a chance to rotate through rad onc or if they do, not until 4th year.

 

[Asp]

Radiation oncologists have great support staff. Dosimetrists, physicists, radiation therapists. They themselves mostly do research and see patients in clinic. At least in my experience in an academic setting. This is similar to im/fm minus the research and the need for technical knowledge and skills.

Examples of specialties unlike rad onc would include trauma surgery and radiology which are not clinic based specialties.