RUSH Chicago program

[Radonc90]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have heard the excellent attendings are gone in 2004-5

The dept is left with people from the 1980's with no interest in teaching or research.

New Chair seems malignant.
New PD is,well...... malignant.

Should I take Rush off my rank list?

radonc90

 

[medgator]

I think that would be a bit pre-mature at this time in this field. The chairman did not seem overtly malignant to me during the interview. I thought he was pretty nice to be honest. The residents also seemed happy that he was at the helm now and trying to modernize the dept. He seems pretty ambitious and has already made good on some of his promises (they have broken ground for a CT sim). Tomotherapy should be coming to the department sometime soon. They have also started a CNS radiosurg program using one of the Linacs and they have a small prostate brachy program up and running now.
The new PD has been a faculty member in the department for sometime. She also seemed very nice to me during the interview.

I don't think the program is malignant. Give it some time, and I think it will be a really decent dept.

 

[Radonc90]

I think that would be a bit pre-mature at this time in this field. The chairman did not seem overtly malignant to me during the interview. I thought he was pretty nice to be honest. The residents also seemed happy that he was at the helm now and trying to modernize the dept. He seems pretty ambitious and has already made good on some of his promises (they have broken ground for a CT sim). Tomotherapy should be coming to the department sometime soon. They have also started a CNS radiosurg program using one of the Linacs and they have a small prostate brachy program up and running now.
The new PD has been a faculty member in the department for sometime. She also seemed very nice to me during the interview.

I don't think the program is malignant. Give it some time, and I think it will be a really decent dept.

The SRS program has been there since 1996.
The prostate brachy program has been there since 1997.

I am glad they get Tomotherapy. Going along "a la mode"....

As a side note, whats seems to be the trend these days is that the applicants look at materials (equipment) more than looking at people. But what makes a huge difference is the people.
U Penn may not have the latest equipment but they have world-class physicians.

The analogy is kind of a car repair business, the dealers may have the latest computer scannners etc. but if the mechanics are not honest or sharp, then we do not get a good job with our cars (not to mention the big bills they sent us after a tune-up). Yet the father-son shop around the corner may be better.

The dept seems to have tons of politics...

 

[G'ville Nole]

As a side note, whats seems to be the trend these days is that the applicants look at materials (equipment) more than looking at people. But what makes a huge difference is the people.
U Penn may not have the latest equipment but they have world-class physicians.

..

Agree to a point, but looking at the toys is not trivial. Prospective employers nowadays generally have an expectation that graduating residents will be fairly conversant in things like IMRT, brachy, etc. For a program to lack something as ubiquitous as CT sim puts the residents who train there at a disadvantage, IMO. Same goes for brachy.

Now, things like APBI, Tomo or protons are "nice to have" rather than "need to have". And, FWIW, I agree that the people in a program are more likely to determine your overall happiness within that program. I would just urge the applicants to critically evaluate the technologies available to them in these programs. I think most of the residencies around are either up to speed or in the process of becoming so. But any that are not, and do not appear to be actively remedying this, should raise a red flag to you.

 

[Kara]

So would you consider U Penn's program one that should raise a red flag due to a lack of technology?

Agree to a point, but looking at the toys is not trivial. Prospective employers nowadays generally have an expectation that graduating residents will be fairly conversant in things like IMRT, brachy, etc. For a program to lack something as ubiquitous as CT sim puts the residents who train there at a disadvantage, IMO. Same goes for brachy.

Now, things like APBI, Tomo or protons are "nice to have" rather than "need to have". And, FWIW, I agree that the people in a program are more likely to determine your overall happiness within that program. I would just urge the applicants to critically evaluate the technologies available to them in these programs. I think most of the residencies around are either up to speed or in the process of becoming so. But any that are not, and do not appear to be actively remedying this, should raise a red flag to you.

 

[medgator]

So would you consider U Penn's program one that should raise a red flag due to a lack of technology?

Aren't they getting protons? Maybe it's a misappropriation of technology 😀

 

[Kara]

Thats right. They are getting protons. What about other modalities (such asTrilogy, IMRT, IGRT, CBCT, resp. gating, linac- and CyberKnife-based stereotactic XRT etc.)?

Aren't they getting protons? Maybe it's a mis-appropriation of technology 😀

 

[G'ville Nole]

So would you consider U Penn's program one that should raise a red flag due to a lack of technology?

Hard to say since I've never visited the program. My understanding is that they have been historically "low tech", but I'd venture to guess that they have at least brought in CT-based planning.

In retrospect, I guess that was the main thrust of my previous post. Programs all tend to fall within a certain range of technologies offered, but I'd advise applicants to use CT based planning as a "minimum acceptable" standard. It's not that you have to use it for everything (in fact, it's kind of overkill for your garden variety palliative treatments), but not having it puts you at a disadvantage.

As far a brachy goes, keep in mind that ACGME has requirements for minimum numbers of procedures performed and observed. Any program that has maintained it's accreditation has found a way to get their residents these numbers. BUT, it's harder to do at some places than others, and if you land at a residency with low volume of procedures, you again are putting yourself at a slight disadvantage.

All of this is not to say that you can't come out of these programs as a competent radiation oncologist, certainly you can. It is, however, worthwhile to consider that while pretty much all of you who end up doing rad onc will have a job in 5.5 years, there's no guarantee it will be a GOOD job. The process of assembling a competitive package for employers definitely resembles what you're doing now in applying for residencies (thought it would all be over after this, eh?). Certainly there's less pressure, since you will be doing a job you (hopefully) love, but it would be nice to go into the process confident that all doors remain open for you.

 

[CNphair]

It is, however, worthwhile to consider that while pretty much all of you who end up doing rad onc will have a job in 5.5 years, there's no guarantee it will be a GOOD job. The process of assembling a competitive package for employers definitely resembles what you're doing now in applying for residencies.

Ah, this is a very, very scary thought right now... I believe I'll take the southern belle approach and "think about that tomorrow." 🙄

 

[radonc]

Ah, this is a very, very scary thought right now... I believe I'll take the southern belle approach and "think about that tomorrow." 🙄

yeah, it could be scary out there. fyi, i met a PGY-3 from MD anderson who was interviewing at astro and had a few job offers...

 

[medgator]

Im sure this all depends on a bunch of factors.... academics vs. private, region of the country, market saturation etc.

 

[mrwagner]

I have heard the excellent attendings are gone in 2004-5

The dept is left with people from the 1980's with no interest in teaching or research.

New Chair seems malignant.
New PD is,well...... malignant.

Should I take Rush off my rank list?

radonc90

Radonc90,

I recall a previous post of yours from 2004 in which you detailed what you considered unsavory aspects of this program, and recommended that candidates should apply to better places. Now you are wondering if you should rank this program. Do you mind if I ask whether you have interviewed this year at this program? May I respectfully ask if it is possible that you have some motivation/agenda for these posts that you are not making explicit?

Thanks,
mrwagner

 

[radonc]

about upenn, they are building protons (funded mainly by childrens hospital, chop), to investigate (among other things) late effects of proton therapy in children. they have the basics like ct sim, imrt, SBRS, brachy (ldr) and possibly hdr. their affiliate, penn community hospital, just got a gamma knife installed this month. you do rotations at the va, penn com, upenn, and poss some satellites. technology is cool and everything, but their residents are very well trained...their cancer center has 14000 new consults a year, including 2500 peds. the department itself sees about 4000 consults a year. they have 15 residents, so they are on call once every 3 months. its a very large dept, 28 attendings, 8phd biologists, 11 phd physicists. they just got a new chairman, dr hahn, who trained at nci...boarded in im, medonc, and radonc. very research oriented department as well.