RO Orals in October cancelled

[RadOncLazers]

Please stop saying this. I'm in academics, treating 1-2 sites, and I would be embarrassed to call myself "board certified" without passing a comprehensive exam. And yes, I'm willing to jump through the MOC hoops (unlike the grandfathered).

Go and look at the way Radiology board certifies.

Or most surgical fields.

If we suddenly needed to treat something (two years out of residency) we would each pick up a book / journal and read.

There is no reason we need to memorize pediatric rad onc for a day.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[metallica81788]

Please stop saying this. I'm in academics, treating 1-2 sites, and I would be embarrassed to call myself "board certified" without passing a comprehensive exam. And yes, I'm willing to jump through the MOC hoops (unlike the grandfathered).

Did we all not already pass a comprehensive exam over a year ago? Plus two others.

Have we not already jumped through hoops? Debate may be strong with the MOC situation, but answering two questions per week won't disrupt our lives the way this/these board exam fiascos have.

 

[RadOncLazers]

Did we all not already pass a comprehensive exam over a year ago? Plus two others.

Have we not already jumped through hoops? Debate may be strong with the MOC situation, but answering two questions per week won't disrupt our lives the way this/these board exam fiascos have.

Yep. Exactly.

 

[Doctorer]

Go and look at the way Radiology board certifies.

Or most surgical fields.

If we suddenly needed to treat something (two years out of residency) we would each pick up a book / journal and read.

There is no reason we need to memorize pediatric rad onc for a day.

I'd argue that a "board certified" radiation oncologist should know how to treat prostate, lung, and breast cancer. Bold statement, I know.

Peds, sure, I'll give you.

 

[FreeRT]

Does Rad Onc need ultra-high quality visual monitors for the purposes of an oral board exam?? How is the vast majority of what Rad Oncs do on oral boards significantly different from what ABS or Ophtho? Do we really need reading quality monitors in order to point out whatever anatomical structures and contouring is asked of rad onc residents?

Radiation Oncology should not have these be the limitations because these are not limitations for OUR field.

ABR should be for radiologists, and there should be a separate board for Radiation Oncology. WHY are we still under the umbrella of Radiology?

We are under the umbrella of Radiology because we are small and depend on the good graces of radiology to support us. We've been diluted by too many competing societies--ACRO, ARS, RSS, ABS. There is simply not enough of us or $$ to have a separate RO board.

Hard to believe based on David Flynn's post that the ACR actually supported ASTRO's job program.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

We are under the umbrella of Radiology because we are small and depend on the good graces of radiology to support us. We've been diluted by too many competing societies--ACRO, ARS, RSS, ABS. There is simply not enough of us or $$ to have a separate RO board.

Hard to believe based on David Flynn's post that the ACR actually supported ASTRO's job program.

View attachment 313509

This was long ago before ASTRO developed its own product. The ACR is the historical heart of RTOG as well as the initial grants came through the ACR in Philadelphia under the leadership of SImon Kramer. ACR also creates the in-service exam.

I used to be a member but cannot justify the exorbitant dues structure for what little they provide in the way of benefits in 2020. The website is down now but I think annual dues are $950/year (much more than ASTRO or ASCO which provide similar benefits for less)

 

[Lamount]

I'd argue that a "board certified" radiation oncologist should know how to treat prostate, lung, and breast cancer. Bold statement, I know.

Peds, sure, I'll give you.

Without access to the internet, textbooks or colleagues with more expertise? I agree, bold.

 

[RadOncLazers]

Without access to the internet, textbooks or colleagues with more expertise? I agree, bold.

I'd argue that a "board certified" radiation oncologist should know how to treat prostate, lung, and breast cancer. Bold statement, I know.

Peds, sure, I'll give you.

Thank you for naming three disease sites. I think we would all be fine taking one more focused test.
Again, if you think the ABR is so godly then look how they test radiologist. Do you think radiologist need to know less or perform at a lower level? They literally can pick ONE, or TWO, or THREE sites for their clinical modules portion of the certification exam. If they just pick ONE area the material gets more advanced.
Let’s get off our rad onc soap box. 85 percent of our board exams are useless, poorly put together, horribly (and mysteriously) graded.

 

[metallica81788]

Thank you for naming three disease sites. I think we would all be fine taking one more focused test.
Again, if you think the ABR is so godly then look how they test radiologist. Do you think radiologist need to know less or perform at a lower level? They literally can pick ONE, or TWO, or THREE sites for their clinical modules portion of the certification exam. If they just pick ONE area the material gets more advanced.
Let’s get off our rad onc soap box. 85 percent of our board exams are useless, poorly put together, horribly (and mysteriously) graded.

We take four board exams because we're smarter than everyone else hurr durr. We can't put on our pants in the morning without PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED EVIDENCE.
There is no soap box anymore; it is and always was a facade.

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

We take four board exams because we're smarter than everyone else hurr durr. We can't put on our pants in the morning without PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED EVIDENCE.
There is no soap box anymore; it is and always was a facade.

My favorite juxtaposition in this specialty is taking some exam which is like "what was the hazard ratio in this 1983 University of Florida retrospective study of 45 patients" and then having an attending be like "we're going to treat this patient to 5040 cGy with 1cm margins" and I'll be like "Oh what's that based on" and I get a coy "experience" with a wink.

 

[ramsesthenice]

My favorite juxtaposition in this specialty is taking some exam which is like "what was the hazard ratio in this 1983 University of Florida retrospective study of 45 patients" and then having an attending be like "we're going to treat this patient to 5040 cGy with 1cm margins" and I'll be like "Oh what's that based on" and I get a coy "experience" with a wink.

Once you are done with the initial written exams (rad bio, physics, and clinical writtens) it gets better. Occasionally you will run into a rogue oral examiner on a section that doesn't follow their examination instructions (but even then they are over ruled if their score is lower than the other 7 without good justification) but the orals and OLA (for MOC) are way more focused on competence.

I am not saying our initial exams shouldn't be tweaked because I think that they should. The biggest value they afford you as the test taker is they force you to build up a solid foundation of the literature as you begin practice. IMO, that end is limited by a lot of the garbage they test on. Specifically, study-specific outcomes. If there are 3 RCTs for a particular disease site (like preop rectal cancer etc) what good is it to know the exact DFS for any one of them if they are all in the same ball park? There is no more value in knowing that it was 9% in study A, 15% in study B, and 12% in study C than knowing patients can expect a 10-15% risk of recurrence. Unless one is an outlier and there is a reason to know it is an outlier, asking someone to know the exact number for a given trial implies either a lack of creativity from the question writer or that a particular trial somehow found the "true" value.

As stated in another thread yesterday, the questions in the new OLA (for MOC) really come much closer to assessing useful, walking around knowledge. You know, the kind of stuff you want the guy treating your mom to know.

 

[medgator]

.

As stated in another thread yesterday, the questions in the new OLA (for MOC) really come much closer to assessing useful, walking around knowledge. You know, the kind of stuff you want the guy treating your mom to know.

It's good how they time the ola questions too, as it really is stuff you should know and shouldn't have time to look up with the way timed thing is

 

[ramsesthenice]

It's good how they time the ola questions too, as it really is stuff you should know and shouldn't have time to look up with the way timed thing is

Most of it doesn't even need to be multiple choice either. It really is walking around knowledge. Very refreshing change of pace.