By Jennifer Jang, ASTRO Communications
At the tender age of 11, sixth graders Aneesh Pirlamarla (PGY-4, far right), Rohan Katipally (PGY-5, far left) and Nishant Shah (PGY-5, middle) became friends in middle school. Fast forward 19 years, their most recent reunion took place at the 2022 ASTRO Annual Meeting, convening now as radiation oncologists. They joke, “what was in the water in South Brunswick, New Jersey?”
The trio came together at middle school under the identity of “comets,” the same cohort at school, meaning their classes and activities were often in parallel — a prescient indicator of what was to come. Their friendship thrived in fits and starts over the next two decades, and yet they landed in mystifyingly similar contexts.
Of the three, Rohan knew earliest on that he wanted to pursue medicine, attending Brown University’s combined undergraduate and medical school program, while Nishant started out with aspirations for engineering at Boston University, enjoying the process of design and science. He eventually migrated into medicine with an interest in surgery, a seemingly natural extension of his initial interest in engineering. However, as he came to the end of his surgery rotation, he recognized that the field didn’t match his personality, as he envisioned having more of a relationship with his patients. Around the same time, a family member was diagnosed with cancer, so his thought process was in a place primed to consider radiation oncology.
Among such an illustrious trio, someone has to be “last,” in which case Aneesh trailed slightly behind the other two, having taken a gap year, even though he was the one who initially prompted Nishant to think about the field of radiation oncology. While at Rutgers, Aneesh engaged in a shadowing program where he followed a breast surgeon, and during clinic with him, he met a radiation oncologist who made an impression. Fast forward a few years, at the end of his third year at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, he was compelled to survey his academic experiences and decided to revisit radiation oncology. Around this same time, Nishant was having a medical identity crisis and called Aneesh, unsure of what steps to take next and which specialty to hone in on, after having focused on surgery for so long. As Aneesh had RO on his mind, he prompted Nishant to explore the field as well. Meanwhile, as Aneesh was researching where to do his RO residency, he consulted Rohan and Nishant on where to apply, and both recommended Fox Chase Cancer Center where he is now.
The three have an ease that comes with having known each other for a long time, without pretense and with much good humor. They strike me as the type who won’t speak for months, and then call one another up late one night and pick up exactly where they left off. Rohan spoke with admiration of his friends, humbly remarking that to collaborate in the future in some capacity would be an honor. The other two were quick to point out that Rohan was class valedictorian, implying who it would really be an honor for, and poked light fun at his sincere compliment.
Prior to the interview, I had conjectured that the three had pre-medical dispositions from their youth, and that their journey to radiation oncology was linear, and I was quickly disproven. In fact, Rohan and Nishant chanced upon each other in the midst of residency interviews, oblivious that the other was engaged in the same process. The three weaved in and out of varying aspects of their medical education and landed on radiation oncology having taken different paths.
But a few common factors characterized the journey to their destination. All three tried other more common fields and found that they were ill fits for their personalities, hugely because of the lack of the opportunity to develop relationships with patients. As for radiation oncology, they were all drawn to the intellectual challenge of the science and diagnostics, the team-based treatment administration and the exciting future of evolving technologies.
When asked about the future of radiation oncology, they collectively viewed it optimistically, touching upon some endeavors necessary to grow the field. Nishant remarked the importance of having a grassroots effort at medical schools to raise awareness of this specialty. He pointed out that the influence of Neha Vapiwala, MD, FASTRO, was critical at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine as an Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, and that because of her, every medical student knew about radiation oncology from the get-go, something he observed while doing his internship there.
Aneesh noted that learning more about the synergies between immunotherapies and radiation held much promise, highlighting that Rohan has researched and published in this area. Aneesh commented that he was not exposed to RO in medical school, and that it needs to be better incorporated into curriculums so students know of it as an option. Rohan piggybacked on this comment, pointing out the need for broader oncologic education for medical students. Being able to impart to students that ROs work as part of a team, ranging from dosimetrists and physicists to medical oncologists and surgical oncologists, will help cultivate interest in the field. Aneesh also highlighted radiation’s growing potential to treat non-oncologic diseases as the method of delivery has improved significantly. The area is ripe for research to discover and apply novel ways to treat patients both within and outside of cancer. The three energetically conveyed wanting to be advocates for the field, broadening exposure, also touching upon payment reform, health policy, all as facets and contributors of delivering high quality care.
They concluded with a few sprinkled memories of Latin class together, group projects involving wildly involved homemade videos to depict scientific concepts, their moms’ active group chat, someone’s embarrassing AOL screenname that they respectfully kept to themselves so as not to embarrass anyone, and fantasy football leagues. Fast forward to today, Aneesh and Nishant both run podcasts with their NOT-abundant spare time and use it as a way to keep in touch with the community they’ve built over the years, extending to their college and medical school classmates. Clearly, connection is important to these three. And it’s that warmth, empathy and connection that bodes well for three meaningful careers ahead where they touch the lives of many grateful patients.
To stay apprised on the careers and observations of this dynamic trio, check them out on Twitter:
Do you have a shared connection through radiation oncology? Email the Communications Department to share your story for consideration on the Blog!
Posted: December 21, 2022
| 0 comments
By Rachel B. Jimenez, MD;1 Curtiland Deville, Jr., MD;2 Chelsea C. Pinnix, MD, PhD;3 and Iris C. Gibbs, MD4
When embarking on the residency selection process for your training program, it is important to recognize that attracting applicants with relevant attributes and experiences is vital for shoring up the strength of our specialty while meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse patient population. A holistic review, applied at all stages of the selection process, can be an effective way to ensure that qualified applicants are not overlooked. Below, we provide some do’s and don’ts to consider during each phase of the recruitment season, followed by additional resources for context and further reading.
- Be consistent:
- Use standardized questions across all interviewees to promote fairness and uniformity in an interview setting.
- Identify the most important skills and attributes of desirable applicants in advance of the residency selection process.
- Consider which skills and attributes are trainable or acquirable through your training program (e.g., research skills) and which are not trainable and constitute proficiencies expected upon entry (e.g., empathy, communication skills).
- Generate a rubric of selection criteria. Circulate the rubric among members of the selection committee for their feedback and encourage use of the rubric in all phases of the selection process from screening and interviews to final selection.
- Promote awareness:
- Provide implicit bias training for all members of the residency selection process to promote awareness and mitigate the effects of unconscious bias.
- Educate the committee about local, institutional and national representation trends and strategies to enhance diversity and inclusion.
- Encourage multiple perspectives:
- Form a diverse residency selection committee (ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, academic level, position focus) that offers broad and multi-faceted perspectives on the applicant pool.
- Foster an environment of open communication that allows members of the selection committee to offer their opinions in a safe and respectful manner.
- Context matters:
- When evaluating the strengths/weaknesses of an applicant’s experiences (e.g., strength of prior research experience or prestige of a letter writer), consider the opportunities available to that applicant in their given training environment and if they have made the most of the opportunities to which they reasonably have access. Reward distance traveled.
- Avoid inappropriate questions:
- Do not inquire about an applicant’s racial or ethnic identity, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or parental status. At times, a candidate may voluntarily share this information so you may simply acknowledge it and move on to the next question. It is not a good practice to ask follow-up questions, even if it is volunteered by the applicant. Similarly, avoid commenting on someone’s physical appearance or inquiring about where else the applicant applied or where they plan to rank your program. This information should have no bearing on the applicant’s candidacy as a resident physician.
- Don’t anchor:
- Avoid focusing on a single strength or weakness in a candidate’s application. If an applicant meets screening criteria for an interview, despite fewer strengths in one domain or because of a particular accomplishment, avoid drawing upon that same item for subsequent considerations of their candidacy.
- Diversity is not a quota:
- Resist the pitfalls of “checking a box.” Invest in individuals and be inclusive.
For additional reading:
Best Practices for Conducting Residency Program Interviews
Diversity Trends by Sex and Underrepresented in Medicine Status Among U.S. Radiation and Medical Oncology Faculty Over 5 Decades
Impact of Holistic Review on Student Interview Pool Diversity
Linguistic Biases in Letters of Recommendation for Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants from 2015 to 2019
Potential Implications of the New USMLE Step 1 Pass/Fail Format for Diversity Within Radiation Oncology
1. Assistant Professor and Associate Residency Program Director, Harvard Radiation Oncology Program; President, Association for Program Directors in Radiation Oncology
2. Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University; ASTRO Board Representative Ex-officio, Health Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
3. Associate Professor and Residency Program Director, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Vice-president, Association for Program Directors in Radiation Oncology
4. Professor of Radiation Oncology and Associate Dean of MD Admissions, Stanford Medicine; former Director of Education and Residency Program Director, Stanford Department of Radiation Oncology
Posted: February 9, 2022
| 1 comments
By Candice Johnstone, MD, MPH, Lindsay Puckett, MD, Hina Saeed, MD
The importance of mentoring for a successful carrier cannot be denied. Effective mentoring contributes to wellness, career growth and satisfaction throughout a lifetime. Leveraging mentorship to promote growth necessitates being aware of when to look for a new mentor for a new stage in your career and taking steps to build a mentor network. A mentor network is a group of individuals that can provide specialization in different areas you are seeking guidance in and can access their wealth of knowledge when needed. Let’s examine what makes a successful mentoring relationship:
- Trust between both individuals.
- Both the mentor and mentee should be prepared for each meeting.
- Set and document appropriate goals for the mentee, with the mentee creating their own goals before the meeting.
- Track progress toward goals.
- Consider existing skills and continuously assess and reassess.
- Acknowledging real and assumed differences can help develop the relationship and deal with crises that come up for mentee.
- Recognize that mentoring is subject to the same social forces and interpersonal dynamics that make all human relationships complex; not all relationships will continue.
Best Practices for Mentors and Mentees
There are many lessons learned as a mentor, as a mentee and from developing or overseeing mentorship programs. Here is some advice we would like to share based on those experiences.
Advice For Mentors
What makes a good mentor?
- Altruism and generosity, including time and accessibility.
- Creative and forward thinking.
- Recognition of mentee’s abilities.
- Recognition of the mentee’s goals and changes in those goals.
- Advocating for your mentee.
- Good communication.
What is a mentor’s role?
- Create a safe space that invites trust and openness.
- Be comfortable addressing perceived and real differences between the mentor and the mentee, such as gender, race or background, and embrace them.
- Be aware of implicit and explicit bias that may affect relationships.
- Acknowledge one’s own identity and experiences.
- Explore, rather than make assumptions.
- Expand experience and knowledge of the mentee.
- Work with the mentee to expand their skills.
Advice for Mentees
What makes a good mentee?
- Enthusiasm and receptivity.
- Initiation and carry through skills.
- Attention to detail and work ethic.
- Awareness of specific goals.
- Respect for the mentor’s time.
What is the mentee’s role?
- Taking initiative with goals and bringing to the table ideas.
- Follow through on steps to achieve goals.
- Good communication.
- Being receptive to advice and constructive criticism.
Missteps and Remedies
Sometimes missteps happen in the mentor-mentee relationship, but there are plenty of remedies to each type of situation. In the JAMA essay Mentee Missteps: Tales From the Academic Trenches, the authors break down six situations stemming from conflict averse and confidence lacking issues. Here are two examples of mentee missteps ― being an overcommitter or a vampire ― and how to remedy them.
This individual lacks the power of no and ends up overcommitting and stretching themself thin. A sign of this might be a résumé that is jam packed with volunteer roles and committee work, and yet few of these positions have resulted in academic products, such as publications.
As a potential solution, the mentee could lean on the mentor as a reason to say “no.” Before committing to a project, determine which current projects you should withdraw from to refocus your efforts. A mentor in this case could add new items to the mentee’s list only after previous goals or projects have been completed.
The mentee requires constant attention and supervision, leaving mentors drained of time and energy. The mentee seeks approval or clarification for every step of a project regardless of similar or past discussions. They may jump from mentor to mentor.
A remedy in this case would be for the mentor to help the mentee recognize their behavior and speak to them about their feelings of insecurity. The mentee should look to their peers and how they handle or cope when struggling. Once these issues are addressed, a mentor could set clear goals and boundaries including what scope of questions are appropriate and what are not.
These guidelines may act as a blueprint for a strong foundation. To view the original charts and other situations, access them on the JAMA network. We hope you can apply these mentoring pearls to your existing or future mentor-mentee relationships.
Do you have any advice for mentors and mentees you have picked up from experience? Please comment below. And to view additional mentoring resources, check out the Mentor Match page on ASTRO.org and read the latest issue of ASTROnews, focused on mentorship.
Vaughn V, Saint S, Chopra V. Mentee Missteps: Tales From the Academic Trenches. JAMA. 2017;317(5):475–476. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12384
Posted: July 12, 2021
| 0 comments
By Shauna Campbell, DO
In comparison with most medical specialties, radiation oncology offers a more family friendly schedule, for both a trainee and practicing physician. However, the board certification process is extensive, including four individual examinations spanning an average of three years. This prolonged process often leaves early career physicians trying to coordinate major life events, such as family planning, with the intensive study required to obtain board certification. From 2018 to 2020, there were several unfortunate events that left a divide between many young physicians and the ABR. This included an unprecedented failure rate in the basic science examinations, examinees who reported their request for accommodations were not fulfilled and cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, there has been a concerted effort by several stakeholder organizations, including the ABR, ARRO, ADROP, SCAROP and ASTRO, to improve the board certification process. As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, I would like to highlight the recent changes that have been implemented.
- As of 2021, all ABR written and oral examinations are now virtual. The ABR should be commended for creating this platform on such a limited timeline, as well as their commitment to continuous improvement.
- Candidates taking the oral examination are no longer required to travel to Tucson, Arizona, limiting the time and financial burden of board certification.
- Candidates are now able to take the written and oral examinations in the environment of their choice, improving the ease of special accommodations.
- The ABR now has improved ability to schedule examination dates based on feedback from stakeholder organizations, as it is no longer dependent on a third-party company for examination administration.
- This change made the extra April 2021 basic science and clinical written examinations possible.
- ARRO has provided feedback requesting the clinical written examination be permanently moved from July/August following graduation to May of PGY-5. This feedback was received favorably by the ABR, and the 2022 examination dates will be released in early June.
- ABR personnel now have direct access to the examination platform and no longer depend on a third-party administrator to implement special accommodations, such as longer breaks or increased testing time.
- Residents are now eligible, with the permission of their program director, to sit for the medical physics and/or radiation and cancer biology examination at the beginning of PGY-4. This is one year earlier than previous requirements and provides residents with personal choice and flexibility to accommodate other life events with board certification.
Family & Medical Leave Policy:
- The ABR is expected to announce their official family and medical leave policy in early June 2021. All medical boards under the American Board of Medical Specialties were called to establish a maximum amount of time away permitted during residency before extension of training is required, as of July 1, 2021.
- The ABR has been responsive to feedback from stakeholder organizations informing this policy, and in the latest draft has introduced a leave policy inclusive of 28 weeks’ leave over four years for radiation oncology trainees. This policy accounts for time away, inclusive of vacation, family, medical and caregiver leave.
- There is also consideration for additional leave, without extension of training, for residents deemed competent by their program director and with special permission of the ABR.
- The ABR will be a leader among medical boards should it finalize this contemporary policy, which is consistent with the recent editorial published in Radiology, Family and Medical Leave for Diagnostic Radiology, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology Residents in the United States: A Policy Opportunity, which was endorsed by ARRO and ADROP. If this policy is finalized as proposed, it would be in agreement with Resolution 48, passed at the 2021 ACR meeting, recommending all residents receive 12 weeks of family and medical leave during residency, with additional time at the discretion of the program director and the ABR.
As we emerge from a difficult few years, the board certification process in radiation oncology has undergone substantial modernization. The changes implemented thus far represent a collaborative effort by several organizations and significant dedication by the ABR to support the growing workforce of radiation oncologists. Continued collaboration and improvement in board certification will help ensure radiation oncology continues to attract talented and diverse physicians that represent the future of our specialty.
Join us on the Gender Equity community on the ROhub to continue the conversation. What future changes do you think should be considered for the continuous improvement of board certification in radiation oncology?”
For additional information, read the ASTRO letter to the ABR on parental leave. This page also includes a link to SCAROP’s letter to the ABR.
Shauna Campbell, DO, is a PGY-5 resident at Cleveland Clinic and immediate past chair of the ARRO Executive Committee.
Posted: May 25, 2021
| 2 comments
By Theodore DeWeese, MD, FASTRO, ASTRO Board Chair
Next week, the National Resident Matching Program® kicks off Match Week, which will culminate with Match Day on March 20. This is an important and exciting day for both students and training programs and represents the first glimpse at the future leaders of our field. We are fortunate to recruit outstanding resident physicians to our field, a group who values the key role radiation oncology plays in the care of patients and who can pursue the future of research in oncology. We anticipate that like last year, there will be an imbalance between the number of programs offering positions and the number of students who match into the radiation oncology specialty. Radiation oncology was not the only specialty to experience a market correction last year, and there are numerous factors that contributed to the expected gap this year. We also recognize that over the last decade there has been a gradual but steady expansion in residency programs and positions, and it is unlikely for this imbalance to be corrected in just a year or two. While outside factors such as board certification exams, program-level training issues and institutional hiring practices are beyond ASTRO’s direct control, there are a number of things that we as a membership society did in the past year to address some of the field’s challenges, and I want to share some of what has been done to-date.
Exams and Training
As a normal course of business, the ASTRO Board regularly discusses the future of the field with an eye toward new treatment options such as theranostics to expand the role of radiation oncologists as leaders in oncology care. With this and other opportunities in mind, ASTRO submitted comments to the ACGME last spring to help shape future training requirements for residents. As the field continues to mature, so too the ACGME Radiation Oncology Program Requirements should evolve. The ASTRO Board also publicly supported the proposal that the ABR make the radiation oncology examination blueprint accessible on its website, including topics and the percentage of the examination dedicated to a topic. We understand the ABR has agreed to develop these blueprints, and this transparency will provide important guidance for trainees, allowing them to focus their studying efforts.
To address resident training and education, ADROP, the Association for Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs, created an information exchange network. This allows programs to share resources, including curricula, with radiation oncology residency program directors, assistant program directors and associate program directors. In addition, leaders of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP) discuss resident issues during their monthly leadership calls and at their Annual Meeting, keeping the topic and the well-being of the field top of mind.
And we continue to listen. During ASTRO19, the ASTRO Board invited the ARRO Chair to share trainee perspectives on priority issues including the board examination processes. The Board also met with leaders from the ABR and ADROP to talk more about resident physician training. We also wanted to hear from recent residents who matched into the specialty about their experiences. I am heartened by residents like Amishi Bajaj, MD, who matched into radiation oncology in 2018 at the McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University. As she noted, “I matched at my dream program in my dream institution. I absolutely love my department and my institution, and I am endlessly inspired by my attendings and coresidents, who are not only brilliant physicians but also wonderfully kind people.”
As a way to support the next generation of researchers and to improve outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients, ASTRO created two new Research Training Fellowships with industry partners AstraZeneca and Varian. The Fellowships are designed to advance the field of radiation oncology by providing new research opportunities in an industry setting. The program will allow each Fellow to gain experience in medical affairs, clinical research and research/development from an industry perspective. We received many high-quality submissions and nominations, and we will be making the announcement about the two Fellow recipients in the weeks to come.
Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
In an effort to introduce radiation oncology to students from historically underrepresented groups, ASTRO led an effort to connect with Chicago-area high school and college students and invited budding scientists to come to ASTRO19. The students met a range of ASTRO members, including radiation oncologists, residents and medical physicists. The students were also given a tour of the Exhibit Hall where they met leaders from a variety of companies to learn more about the latest medical advances. Because most medical schools do not require a rotation through radiation oncology, it is our hope that introducing young women and men from underrepresented minority groups to our field at this formative stage of their education will inform their future career decisions.
Addressing Patient Needs
We have heard concern about the job market and the timing of job offers for those completing residency, and we understand that many residents seek to work in academic settings. In fact, a recent Red Journal article, “Top Concerns of Radiation Oncology Trainees in 2019: Job Market, Board Examinations and Residency Expansion,” by Kahn, et al noted that “graduates strongly prefer jobs that are located in large cities (population >500,000) and that specific geographic regions, such as the Midwest, are considered to be less desirable.” Those preferences are certainly consistent with previous resident graduates. Interestingly, and importantly from a job search perspective, an analysis done for the ASTRO Rural Task Force revealed that 15% of Americans live in a non-metro area with only 6% of radiation oncologists practicing in these non-metro areas. Such information is not widely known and may help future residents consider these opportunities. Working in non-metro and smaller community settings can have tangible and direct impact where there is high patient need for quality oncologic care.
Volunteering Makes the Field Stronger
We want our field to grow in a healthy way, and the best way to change the course of the field or ASTRO as a membership society is for you to get involved. By serving as a volunteer on a committee or task force, your voice and perspective have more impact and weight.
One thing we continue to hear is that many medical students aren’t introduced to the specialty or have minimal exposure to what radiation oncology entails. As Mudit Chowdhary, MD, chief resident at Rush University Medical Center noted, “In hindsight, I realize how lucky I was to have learned about radiation oncology. Like many, I had never heard of this field even after two years of medical school. During this time, my future brother-in-law matched into a radiation oncology residency program and encouraged me to learn more about the specialty.” Another thing you can do without joining a formal committee is take the opportunity to educate your peer physicians or the medical students you encounter. The volunteers in ASTRO’s Communications Committee recently released updated slide decks that all ASTRO members can access to introduce or educate your colleagues and patients about the latest advances in radiation therapy. There is one RT overview presentation for the general public and two presentations for medical professionals: a general overview and the first in a series of disease-site specific trainings, this one focused on lung cancer treatments.
Amishi noted in her essay: “To the medical students out there who similarly identify as lovers of medicine in all its forms: Don’t forget to consider radiation oncology. You really can have it all.” As we look ahead to the Match results to come, we remain thankful to all those who are currently practicing and training in radiation oncology, and for the commitment of medical students seeking to help cancer patients by joining the radiation oncology field. ASTRO will continue to be an advocate for the field and do its best to influence how the scope of the specialty continues to evolve.
Read previous posts:
The Residency Training Landscape
(posted March 20, 2019)
The Residency Training Landscape, continued
(posted May 28, 2019)
Posted: March 10, 2020
| 0 comments