rads vs. path

[caedmon]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am an MS III struggling trying to decide which way to go. Rads or Path. I was hoping you guys could comment on some on some of my thoughts or just help out. When I tell people these are two fields I'm interested in they're like, "those are totally different" but in my opinion they are very similar.

1. Both are diagnostically oriented
2. Both are critical to a patient's management
3. Both are visually oriented to some extent (Rads > Path)
4. Both have good lifestyle

And of course there are some major differences.

Dark room vs. lab
reading films vs. lab type work etc. etc. etc

Again, I am only MS III and haven't had much experience in either, but of course time to declare has come and gone without rotations in either. I've tried to take the initiative to look at any films or path specimens and discuss results with the docs whenever possible. From this limited experience, I think I'd be very happy in either field. I'd appreciate any added thoughts, comments, or persuasion.

Oh yeah, rumors of rads outsourcing also scares me a little.

Thanks in advance

 

[doepug]

Rads and path are very similar in many regards, and many radiologists (and aspiring radiologists) struggled with the same decision that you have to make. I came to medical school convinced that path was for me, only to be swept off my feet by radiology.

Radiologists and pathologists look at the same lesions in different ways. Rad-path correlations are big in both fields, and radiology residents at most programs spend 6 weeks at the AFIP focusing on this. With the advent of molecular imaging, radiology and pathology are closer than ever.

Remember that much of radiology is procedure-based. If you were to choose rads, you'd be exposed to vascular/interventional procedures, all kinds of GI and fluoro studies, and CT/US-guided biopsies. Aside from the occasional FNA, you wouldn't do any procedures as a pathologist.

I'd recommend scheduling a basic radiology elective and a surgical pathology rotation ASAP. These are both great fields, but you owe it to yourself to see them both first hand.

Cheers,

doepug (MS IV)

 

[Docxter]

The lifestyle of radiologists and pathologists are quite different. A decade ago they were quite similar, but now radiologists routinely take in-house call and have much longer hours. See this thread:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?threadid=101722 in the General Residency issues forum.

 

[jbernar1]

I know where you're coming from. I'm going through the same thing.

 

[Kalel]

Originally posted by caedmon


Oh yeah, rumors of rads outsourcing also scares me a little.

I wouldn't give a second thought to these rumors. Besides the legality hurdle, there is *tons* of work for radiologists these days. With newer technology, they keep pushing themselves into new fields (eg virtual colonoscopy, ecg gated chest ct vs diagnostic cath, IR, etc), they are probably the most rapidly expanding specialty in medicine and there are not nearly enough radiologists being trained these days to handle the increase in work-load that radiologists are going to have to do in the future. Almost everybody who comes into an ER these days gets some sort of radiological imaging, and there is always going to be a need for some radiologist to interpret that imaging as normal or abnormal. When physicians ignore a radiologist's report or fail to get an interpretation, they end up getting sued and usually will lose the case if they miss something.

 

[RADRULES]

My job as a radiologist is to take interpret the radiological appearance of some pathology.

We have to know two things extremely well.... anatomy and pathology.

Rad-Path correlation such as the AFIP are fantastic. I have a good working relationship with most of the path guys at our hospital and the give me follow-up all the time. That stuff is invalvuable in training a radiologist.

Both are nice fields, but I would go with rads, because it seems to be on the cutting edge of medicine and has a bright future.

Outsourcing rads probably will never be a significant threat (I hope), but most of the radiology community is starting to move to nip it in the bud anyways.