research time in residency

[Photon Finish]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Some residents and I were looking to compile a list of how many months different rad onc residency programs allow for research time. Could any of you help and let us know how much time you get at your program or programs you have interviewed at? Thanks!

 

[DocSqd]

I've been meaning to post this for a while, and it is certainly related. Have people encountered programs with strong research opportunities that you might have otherwise not expected to. The frequently referred to "top ten" programs aside, I'm curious if there are any mid tier programs out there that provide both the time and the environment for a robust research experience during residency.

 

[thesauce]

I've been meaning to post this for a while, and it is certainly related. Have people encountered programs with strong research opportunities that you might have otherwise not expected to. The frequently referred to "top ten" programs aside, I'm curious if there are any mid tier programs out there that provide both the time and the environment for a robust research experience during residency.

Jefferson, RWJ, Henry Ford, NCI, Moffitt, SUNY-Buffalo just to name a few

 

[Carotenoid]

This is pointless for our cycle, but will be useful for the future applicants: I was pleasantly surprised by the commitment to research at Ohio State and U of Rochester - and also Suny-Buffalo and RWJ, as thesauce mentions above.

 

[ramsesthenice]

For applicants next year and beyond, this is something you need to ask about at interviews. Most academic programs offer 6ish months standard, some 3, some 12, but 6 seemed to be the majority. The ABR requires residents a minimum of 36 months clinical training (so a max 12 months research) without doing the Holman. Many many academic programs you would not expect, like Cincy, Rush, UNC, Case Western and many of the above mentioned, were very receptive to working with electives to provide up to 12 months, even though its not the norm in their program, if a resident were able to come up with a proposal and get some support for it, be it an ASTRO initiative or some internal award. Make sure to talk to the current residents, because a few places were skeptical that the PD would be as flexable as advertised...not sure what to do with the difference of opinion, but its worth knowing.

 

[Suizo Gan]

So for programs that were willing to let you do extended research, say 12 months - did you ask if they would be willing to accommodate, or did they offer once they noticed you were interested in research as part of the conversation, etc? It is a subtle distinction - I just don't want an institution to think because they are not at the level of MDACC research that I wouldn't be interested in them.

Also, if a school does not advertise Holman on their website as an option, it is fair to assume they don't offer it?

 

[thesauce]

Also, if a school does not advertise Holman on their website as an option, it is fair to assume they don't offer it?

No. Most programs don't keep their website current. Ours hasn't been updated for at least 5 years.

 

[ramsesthenice]

Hollman is a mixed bag. In general, and this is a BIG generalization, very senior PDs and attendings that trained in the good old days tend to be more skeptical of the Holmann as there is a field of thought it takes too much time away from clinical training. There are obviously huge exceptions: Dr Lawrence at Mich and Dr Haffty at RWJ to name a few. The reason I mention this is that what you may find is the support for Holmann can vary even within a department and its important to know who actually has the final say whether you get to do one or not. The residents can be an invaluable resource in that regard, but what to do if your gut tells you otherwise or you get mixed advice...Im not too sure. If your dead set on Holmann (which no applicant really should be in my mind) then the usual suspects, MDA, Yale, Mich, Vandy, Stanford, Harvards and the like is where to target.

Also, you usually have to ask if more research is possible. A few places put it on the table, but often you have to bring it up. Your background is not always a good indicator of what you want to do in terms of clinical/research balance. Classic example, a lot of PhDs burn out and don't want another 12 months in the lab. I wouldn't take it as a negative sign if you have to bring that topic up.

 

[CyberKnife19]

In addition to the amount of dedicated research time, it is also extremely important to attempt to assess how productive the residents are from a research standpoint during their 3-3.5 years of clinical training. Unfortunately, in a 4-8 hour interview day, that is extremely difficult to determine.

For example, while we may only have 7.5-10 months of dedicated research time at my program, our clinic is arranged such that every attending (and therefore, resident) has 1.5-2 academic days per week. This enables us to be have ample time to do research even before we have our dedicated research time in our PGY-4 and PGY-5 years. Conversely, I have a couple of friends who are also PGY-2's at other "top 10" programs who laughed incredulously when I asked them how their research projects were going. They were so busy in clinic that they didn't have any time for research and were pretty surprised when I told them that I had already completed a GYN project and am about to finish up a H&N project. So...it's more than just the dedicated research time.

 

[napoleondynamite]

Very good point CK. At my program we only get 3 dedicated months, but residents have managed to produce more tangible results in the past few years than at many programs with 6-12 months for the exact reason you stated. Our clinic is likewise setup so that the attending (and thus resident) are freed up for 1-2 days per week. Research is better done that way IMO than in huge blocks of time, as you often are awaiting things like IRB approvals, tests to come back, stats, etc. So I agree it's the long haul that's most important if research is important to you.

 

[Neuronix]

So I agree it's the long haul that's most important if research is important to you.

I would agree that clinical research in some ways can be better done in small batches of time, since the data collection and analysis lends itself to large pauses between progression in experiments (IRB approval, patient accrual, data to statistics for analysis, etc...).

Basic research requires larger continuous chunks of time to accomplish anything significant. The experiments take a long time, are primarily individual investigator driven, require continuous use of experimental skills to perform successfully, and are often time sensitive due to competition from other investigators.

It seems to me that the best way to proceed in residency for a serious research career in rad onc is to do some of both. This means having the block of protected research time and having enough clinic time to allow you to put out a clinical project a year or so. The number of programs that seem to give both are rather small... That would be outside of doing a Holman and just focusing on basic research, of course. That said, the vast majority of residents are not really interested in basic research, so I'm not sure this info really applies to many.