Medical Physics is an exciting field

[mk_gm1]

What kind of chance would an international student have of getting into a CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics PhD and subsequently into a residency program? Is it similar to medicine, where the likelihood of an international student getting into a US Medical School is basically 0%?

 

[NeoDevin]

What kind of chance would an international student have of getting into a CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics PhD and subsequently into a residency program? Is it similar to medicine, where the likelihood of an international student getting into a US Medical School is basically 0%?

We have several international students in our department already. Don't know off hand if its any more difficult for international students than citizens, but it's certainly not impossible.

 

[NeoDevin]

If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.

Not knowing which topics you have and haven't covered in your courses, I can't say. Check out the medical physics http://mp.med.uAlberta.ca/index.html" , there is contact information there. You'll be able to ask specific questions regarding any additional background you might need, and get better answers than we can give you here.

 

[NeoDevin]

You don't actually need to know any physics to be successful in medical physics so don't waste your time.

If your goal in medical physics is just to do clinical QA measurements for the rest of your life, you may be able to get away without using much physics. If you actually want to make a contribution to the field, you need a solid physics background.

 

[AtomicPile]

Well, it's not that I am anti-UofA or UofC, but, I didn't realize they were both so highly regarded in this regard and primarily my reason for discounting both is that I have lived in Alberta my entire life and experiencing something new and gaining additional perspective on the world is appealing to me.

Sounds like I shouldn't discount them too early though. If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.

Perhaps you should start by reading earlier posts on this thread.

Goto
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6780&highlight=Medical+Physics&page=8

Start at thread #116

 

[Choppy]

Well, it's not that I am anti-UofA or UofC, but, I didn't realize they were both so highly regarded in this regard and primarily my reason for discounting both is that I have lived in Alberta my entire life and experiencing something new and gaining additional perspective on the world is appealing to me.

Sounds like I shouldn't discount them too early though. If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.

As far as moving on from your current (or previous) location, that's' totally understandable. I think there is a lot of value in doing that, even if it's just for social reasons.

One thing that's worth pointing out is that there are differences between CAMPEP-accredited programs, which I suspect is a strong source of some of the debates posted in this thread. The accreditation process examines the course content of the programs - ensuring that sufficient material is covered in the exam to prepare the candidate for board exams. Little, if any emphasis is on the research component. Hence in some programs, you are still completing a physics PhD, you still go through a comprehensive and/or candidacy examination, tackle standard graduate level classes such as E&M and quantum, publish papers, write a thesis, etc - on top of completing the didactic course work. In other programs, you just have to complete the didactic course work and the focus is purely on clinical training.

My observations are that people who come out of the research-oriented (but still accredited) programs appear to have a much easier time finding a job than people who come out of more clinically-oriented programs.

As for specific classes, NeoDevin's got good advice. Contact the specifc schools you're interested in. Generally you need to be at the level of a student coming out of a physics undergrad program - including E&M, quantum, advanced lab, thermodynamics, etc. Arguably, to complete the didactic course work you won't need any advanced QM courses, but you should be on a level where you understand Fourier transforms, convolutions, and general signal processessing - which as an EE, I'm assuming you will very likely have covered.

 

[Choppy]

What kind of chance would an international student have of getting into a CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics PhD and subsequently into a residency program? Is it similar to medicine, where the likelihood of an international student getting into a US Medical School is basically 0%?

This will vary from program to program, but my experience is that international students are just as competative as those from within the country.

 

[RadPhys]

Linac-MR is totally a joke. It will never materialize. It is just like some physicists have nothing to do and just apply for some money to fill up their time. Or make their jobs sound like important...

I would second the recommendation. If you want to do MSc in Medical Physics, University of Alberta is an excellent place to be. There is lots of interesting research going on regarding the Linac-MR (most of which is covered by an NDA, so don't bother asking me for details), and an EE background would likely be an asset at the moment. You may need to take a few undergrad physics courses to get any background you're missing, but it shouldn't be too much. Feel free to PM me for more information, I'm a grad student here right now.

 

[NeoDevin]

Linac-MR is totally a joke. It will never materialize. It is just like some physicists have nothing to do and just apply for some money to fill up their time. Or make their jobs sound like important...

Good to have the opinion of someone with firsthand knowledge...

 

[jbalter]

I have never commented publicly about the medical physics job market, and have never tied jobs to the global economy. While I may have opinions (in fact I would disagree with the opinion that you incorrectly attribute to me), I believe guaging the market is a very complex task. I have not directed the Michigan training program for the past 3 years, and as far as I know neither of the other Balter family members directs a training program or actively recruits trainees to their department's programs (Stephen Balter is not even in Radiation Oncology). You might want to try to get your facts straight.

There is no shortage in the medical physics field nor will there be in the foreseeable future. I realize that I might seem like the "glass half empty" type, but think about this:

1. The "slow" economy is not the source of the current problem as some would portray in other threads. There was never a shortage. Some guys, say Peter Balter (MD Anderson Cancer Center), or his brother James Balter (Univ Michigan) , or their father Stephen Balter (Columbia University Medical Center) made this statement up to draw in new recruits to their training programs around the US. Their programs, and others, are certification mills that feed each other. Once you are out of the queue, you are unemployed.

2. The aging population argument that some wish to place their "faith" in is a red herring. It is true that the population IS aging. But it would negate the "slow" economy supposition of #1. Consider that the population is aging and consequently, because they are baby boomers, expanding the need for medical physicists. Then the slow economy could not hold back the floodwater of demand for these same physicists.

The one place that has even tried to justify a shortage of medical physicists by publishing a study is looking for, u-hum, now pay attention, a health physicist. This is the University of Louisville advertising on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website.

QED

 

[AtomicPile]

I have never commented publicly about the medical physics job market, and have never tied jobs to the global economy.

Your language of "never commented publicly" is duly noted. I guess we will have to wait for the newspaper article, journal article or TV interview for the qualifier "publicly" to be true?

... as far as I know neither of the other Balter family members directs a training program or actively recruits trainees to their department's programs (Stephen Balter is not even in Radiation Oncology). You might want to try to get your facts straight.

I have my facts very straight.

You actively recruit by participating in the medical physics residency interview process. If a person participates in this behavior, then they are actively recruiting.

.
(Stephen Balter is not even in Radiation Oncology).

Really? So he is not in radiation oncology but he likes to publish articles discussing radiation oncology. For example,

"Anniversary paper: A sampling of novel technologies and the role of medical physicists in radiation oncology." Balter S, Balter JM. Med Phys. 2008 Dec;35(12):5641-52.

Assuming that you are James Balter, you should learn to take responsibility for your actions.

 

[landongoggins]

I'm a sophomore in college and I'm researching medical physics right now. As I was talking to a classmate who is doing the same, we began to talk about radio-oncology also. What are the main differences between a medical physicist and a radio-oncologist? I mean in terms of education, pay, responsibilities, etc. Thanks for your contribution!

 

[Choppy]

I'm a sophomore in college and I'm researching medical physics right now. As I was talking to a classmate who is doing the same, we began to talk about radio-oncology also. What are the main differences between a medical physicist and a radio-oncologist? I mean in terms of education, pay, responsibilities, etc. Thanks for your contribution!

A radiation oncologist is medical doctor specializing in treating people with radiation. Education-wise you're looking at 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school, then a 4-5 year (paid) residency and possibly a 1 year fellowship. This person is responsible for the care and treatment of individual patients. He or she will have a hand in diagnosing the cancer, determining the stage, and delineating exactly what areas on a set of images are in fact cancer, and then will prescribe the radiation, decide on the modality to use (external beam, brachytherapy, protons, etc.) and define specific limits to various tissues and organs.

You can read this thread for thorough description of a medical physicist, however in a nutshell, a medical physicist is a physicist. Their education is generally a 4 year undergraduate physics degree and at least a masters degree, but it's often a PhD. Further a 2 year (usually paid) residency is required to gain hands-on experience with the clinical aspects of the job. The medical physicist in radiation oncology is responsible for the proper operation of the treatment planning systems and the radiation delivery systems. This involves commissioning work, calibration, establishing and maintaining a quality assurance program, assessing and approving treatment plans, and assessing and fixing problems that occur within the clinic (which can involve everything from estimating the biological consequences of a patient missing several treatments, to writing a deformable image registration program to combine different images). There's a lot of responsibility because when a physicist makes a mistake in something like a calibration, it can effect every patient subsequently treated with the involved device. Personally, I would argue that we actually have more responsibility than a radiation oncologist in this respect, but our relative pay does not reflect this. You can look up the relative salaries in any of the online salary data archives.

 

[landongoggins]

A radiation oncologist is medical doctor specializing in treating people with radiation. Education-wise you're looking at 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school, then a 4-5 year (paid) residency and possibly a 1 year fellowship. This person is responsible for the care and treatment of individual patients. He or she will have a hand in diagnosing the cancer, determining the stage, and delineating exactly what areas on a set of images are in fact cancer, and then will prescribe the radiation, decide on the modality to use (external beam, brachytherapy, protons, etc.) and define specific limits to various tissues and organs.

You can read this thread for thorough description of a medical physicist, however in a nutshell, a medical physicist is a physicist. Their education is generally a 4 year undergraduate physics degree and at least a masters degree, but it's often a PhD. Further a 2 year (usually paid) residency is required to gain hands-on experience with the clinical aspects of the job. The medical physicist in radiation oncology is responsible for the proper operation of the treatment planning systems and the radiation delivery systems. This involves commissioning work, calibration, establishing and maintaining a quality assurance program, assessing and approving treatment plans, and assessing and fixing problems that occur within the clinic (which can involve everything from estimating the biological consequences of a patient missing several treatments, to writing a deformable image registration program to combine different images). There's a lot of responsibility because when a physicist makes a mistake in something like a calibration, it can effect every patient subsequently treated with the involved device. Personally, I would argue that we actually have more responsibility than a radiation oncologist in this respect, but our relative pay does not reflect this. You can look up the relative salaries in any of the online salary data archives.

Thanks for your reply, it's very informative. It's always nice to have a description from someone with experience. I did look up the average salaries, and it seems radio-oncologists do make more on average. However, I think I am a lot more interested in Medical Physics. Also, from what I've read so far, it seems that if I want to do mainly clinical work I should plan on getting an M.S., and If I want to do research I should get a PhD. What is your recommendation? Thanks again!

 

[Choppy]

My experience has been that PhDs are much more competative for the more desired positions compared to the MScs - even if you want to do mainly clinical work.

 

[Diracula]

It looks like Vanderbilt has transitioned from a PhD program to a professional doctorate. Any information or opinions on this? How will a DMP affect the medical physics market and the demand for PhDs? Do DMPs still have to do a clinical residency since the last 2 years of their education are clinical in nature and are they more/less/equally competitive to PhDs with a residency? It may be too early to tell on some of these questions, but I'm guessing some people have a good idea on how a DMP will be viewed by hospitals... otherwise Vanderbilt wouldn't have made the switch.

 

[Choppy]

It looks like Vanderbilt has transitioned from a PhD program to a professional doctorate. Any information or opinions on this? How will a DMP affect the medical physics market and the demand for PhDs? Do DMPs still have to do a clinical residency since the last 2 years of their education are clinical in nature and are they more/less/equally competitive to PhDs with a residency? It may be too early to tell on some of these questions, but I'm guessing some people have a good idea on how a DMP will be viewed by hospitals... otherwise Vanderbilt wouldn't have made the switch.

There's been a lot of debate in the medical physics community about whether this is a good idea or not. I see advantages and disadvantages to it, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

So that this isn't a complete rant, I should point out the advantages. First off, for the student you have a guarantee of clinical experience, so you avoid the uncertainty and stress of having to find a residency after your degree, which you need in order to eventually become certified. For the profession, the DMP also provides a somewhat faster track to train physicists (at least compared to anyone going the PhD route). This will assist in meeting the projected demand for medical physicists in the near future (those who believe that the market is already saturated are unlikely to see this as a positive). Further, graduates will have the prestige of the title "doctor" not given to anyone with an MSc. In the long run, if the vast majority of medical physicists have the "doctor" title, it becomes a visible distinction that is not always currently present.

My first major concern with these programs is their lack of emphasis on research and the subsequent consequences. Research, far more than course work, is what creates the skills to solve problems that have not yet been encountered, and for which there is no predetermined solution in the back of the textbook. It instills critical thinking skills, and a level of intellectual independence that cannot come from other forms of training. Further, this is the stage in a physicist's training where the physics is most deeply and intimately learned. While many medical physicists have careers that are almost entirely clinical in nature - "clinical" does not mean you won't encounter new technologies or new methodologies or problems that have not been solved. One of the most fundamental contributions a medical physicist makes to the radiotherapy team is his or her ability to solve problems. By eliminating this aspect of the training, you produce an inferior final product.

If you look back a few pages in this thread, you'll see some of the discussions I've had with others about whether or not a medical physicist is a "glorified technician." Something that hasn't been emphasized is the relationship between physicists and radiation therapists (RTs). RTs are very technically competant professionals and their training programs are now largely becoming degree-based (as opposed to a 2 year technical diploma). They vastly outnumber physicists and as a result have a strong political foundation that physicists can't field. If we produce medical physicsts, with minimal to no research experience, we become not that much different than RTs (there is, of course still an undergraduate physics background, and the didactic course work, which are not to be trivialized). But there is the risk that many medical physicists could be replacd by "advanced" RTs.

Another effect of reduced research emphasis is the overall effect on the radiation therapy field. With less medical physicists trained to do research, less medical physicists will do research and less progress will be made and the field will stagnate rather than grow and advance and improve.

Another concern I would have as a student considering a DMP program is pay. As a resident, you are paid for your services. My understanding is that these programs turn that around. For similar work, you end up having to pay. This extremely undervalues the work contributions that residents make to a department. While it is a learning position, residents will often do a lot of routine, skilled "grunt" work (QA, chart checks, etc) and getting people to pay to do this smacks of Tom Sawyer tricking the neighbourhood kids into whitewashing a fence.

 

[qball2]

There's been a lot of debate in the medical physics community about whether this is a good idea or not. I see advantages and disadvantages to it, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

So that this isn't a complete rant, I should point out the advantages. First off, for the student you have a guarantee of clinical experience, so you avoid the uncertainty and stress of having to find a residency after your degree, which you need in order to eventually become certified. For the profession, the DMP also provides a somewhat faster track to train physicists (at least compared to anyone going the PhD route). This will assist in meeting the projected demand for medical physicists in the near future (those who believe that the market is already saturated are unlikely to see this as a positive). Further, graduates will have the prestige of the title "doctor" not given to anyone with an MSc. In the long run, if the vast majority of medical physicists have the "doctor" title, it becomes a visible distinction that is not always currently present.

My first major concern with these programs is their lack of emphasis on research and the subsequent consequences. Research, far more than course work, is what creates the skills to solve problems that have not yet been encountered, and for which there is no predetermined solution in the back of the textbook. It instills critical thinking skills, and a level of intellectual independence that cannot come from other forms of training. Further, this is the stage in a physicist's training where the physics is most deeply and intimately learned. While many medical physicists have careers that are almost entirely clinical in nature - "clinical" does not mean you won't encounter new technologies or new methodologies or problems that have not been solved. One of the most fundamental contributions a medical physicist makes to the radiotherapy team is his or her ability to solve problems. By eliminating this aspect of the training, you produce an inferior final product.

If you look back a few pages in this thread, you'll see some of the discussions I've had with others about whether or not a medical physicist is a "glorified technician." Something that hasn't been emphasized is the relationship between physicists and radiation therapists (RTs). RTs are very technically competant professionals and their training programs are now largely becoming degree-based (as opposed to a 2 year technical diploma). They vastly outnumber physicists and as a result have a strong political foundation that physicists can't field. If we produce medical physicsts, with minimal to no research experience, we become not that much different than RTs (there is, of course still an undergraduate physics background, and the didactic course work, which are not to be trivialized). But there is the risk that many medical physicists could be replacd by "advanced" RTs.

Another effect of reduced research emphasis is the overall effect on the radiation therapy field. With less medical physicists trained to do research, less medical physicists will do research and less progress will be made and the field will stagnate rather than grow and advance and improve.

Another concern I would have as a student considering a DMP program is pay. As a resident, you are paid for your services. My understanding is that these programs turn that around. For similar work, you end up having to pay. This extremely undervalues the work contributions that residents make to a department. While it is a learning position, residents will often do a lot of routine, skilled "grunt" work (QA, chart checks, etc) and getting people to pay to do this smacks of Tom Sawyer tricking the neighbourhood kids into whitewashing a fence.

For once I actually agree with you.

 

[gleem]

I have just become a member of The Physics Forum. I was happy to see that there is a medical physics thread . Some of what is written below is meant to address some of the previous discussions.

There are a lot of issues associated with being a successful medical physicist; formal education, clinical training, professional status, compensation, responsibility and even personality and temperament (especially encompassing communication and leadership skills).

I am a retired clinical medical physicist having worked in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and health physics over 30 yrs. I entered the field through a NIH post doctoral fellowship. I have dealt with all these issues at one time or another.

A firm grounding is physics is essential. You must think like physicist. Medical physics is not a venue to do things by rote. You must make sure you have all the required knowledge and understanding of the pertinent physical principles employed. There is a lot of routine and yes some things can be handled by a technologist or dosimetrist but it must always be timely reviewed by a competent medical physicist before an error can cause harm.

Clinical training not only involves learning what measurements to make and how to make them but also learning aspects of the jobs and needs of the other members of the team, physician, technologist, dosimetrist etc. You have a responsibility to them to provide necessary information and guidance for them to do their job safely and with confidence. You must be able to effectively communicate with them on their terms. You respect them and they will respect you. You are ethically required to intervene on any procedure you know or suspect will cause harm. Know the limits of your authority.

A certified medical physicist is the only non physician professional to be listed in the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not commensurate with a technician status. I know some physicians subvert this. But by enlarge most in my experience treat you as a colleague. Part of this relationship depends on the physicist and his or her ability to engage the physician so that the respect is first established and then maintained. If the cards are stacked aginst this type of relationship then seek other employment.

Is a good physicist worth $170K? You betcha! Of course this is commensurate with responsibilities. One careless lapse can kill or permanently injure scores of persons. One wrong assumption in calibration through improper training or not thinking like a physicist as was reported recently in the New York Times can do the same and bring embarrassment and severe financial repercussions. I was told by a hospital administrator that the reason he made such a high salary was that he would not be respected as well by the medical staff if he didn't. Think what you may but a measure of value is determined by salary. Physicists work hard routinely working 50+ hours a week and at odd hours and more on special projects. Federal and some state regulation require that only a properly trained physicist perform certain functions.

I had mentioned responsibility before relating to the physician and technologist. But it is for the patient that you have been hired. Your hired for the patient not as an assistant to the physician. Clinical physicists have direct patient contact. Patients to you are real persons some of whom you know. You are the only one in the clinic (even a healthcare system) who can do what you do. You are unique but someone always seem to want pigeon-hole you. Once the clinic manager rejected a my request to attend a yearly professional meeting because even nurses don't get to go every year and the budget is stretched. Fortunately the radiation oncologist intervened. Physicians work on the principle that there is alway money for good cause.


Finally and this is important, A lot of physicists create problems for themselves because of personality and temperament issues. They lack good communication skill , are abrasive, disrespectful, or not willing to speak up effectively for their cause. A lot of physicist are relegated to the background or their duties very much complicated because of this. You need to be a people person. You need to express yourself effectively with a whole spectrum of people on their level including fellow physicists, any physician who shares patients with your clinic, government regulators, hospital administrators, nurses, housekeepers, security personnel, maintenance/engineering personnel, vendors as well as your clinical colleagues. If you leave a job you should be able to get a recommendation from most of the persons with whom you have consistently interacted . I add one more item, professional appearance. In this age of "dress down" culture were jeans and T-shirts seem to be the norm, in the clinic wear a clean lab coat. Always wear a shirt and tie. With meetings outside the department a suit or sport coat. You look like a bum so will you be treated.

Medical physics can be an extremely satisfying profession for the right person.

 

[landongoggins]

I have just become a member of The Physics Forum. I was happy to see that there is a medical physics thread . Some of what is written below is meant to address some of the previous discussions.

There are a lot of issues associated with being a successful medical physicist; formal education, clinical training, professional status, compensation, responsibility and even personality and temperament (especially encompassing communication and leadership skills).

I am a retired clinical medical physicist having worked in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and health physics over 30 yrs. I entered the field through a NIH post doctoral fellowship. I have dealt with all these issues at one time or another.

A firm grounding is physics is essential. You must think like physicist. Medical physics is not a venue to do things by rote. You must make sure you have all the required knowledge and understanding of the pertinent physical principles employed. There is a lot of routine and yes some things can be handled by a technologist or dosimetrist but it must always be timely reviewed by a competent medical physicist before an error can cause harm.

Clinical training not only involves learning what measurements to make and how to make them but also learning aspects of the jobs and needs of the other members of the team, physician, technologist, dosimetrist etc. You have a responsibility to them to provide necessary information and guidance for them to do their job safely and with confidence. You must be able to effectively communicate with them on their terms. You respect them and they will respect you. You are ethically required to intervene on any procedure you know or suspect will cause harm. Know the limits of your authority.

A certified medical physicist is the only non physician professional to be listed in the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not commensurate with a technician status. I know some physicians subvert this. But by enlarge most in my experience treat you as a colleague. Part of this relationship depends on the physicist and his or her ability to engage the physician so that the respect is first established and then maintained. If the cards are stacked aginst this type of relationship then seek other employment.

Is a good physicist worth $170K? You betcha! Of course this is commensurate with responsibilities. One careless lapse can kill or permanently injure scores of persons. One wrong assumption in calibration through improper training or not thinking like a physicist as was reported recently in the New York Times can do the same and bring embarrassment and severe financial repercussions. I was told by a hospital administrator that the reason he made such a high salary was that he would not be respected as well by the medical staff if he didn't. Think what you may but a measure of value is determined by salary. Physicists work hard routinely working 50+ hours a week and at odd hours and more on special projects. Federal and some state regulation require that only a properly trained physicist perform certain functions.

I had mentioned responsibility before relating to the physician and technologist. But it is for the patient that you have been hired. Your hired for the patient not as an assistant to the physician. Clinical physicists have direct patient contact. Patients to you are real persons some of whom you know. You are the only one in the clinic (even a healthcare system) who can do what you do. You are unique but someone always seem to want pigeon-hole you. Once the clinic manager rejected a my request to attend a yearly professional meeting because even nurses don't get to go every year and the budget is stretched. Fortunately the radiation oncologist intervened. Physicians work on the principle that there is alway money for good cause.


Finally and this is important, A lot of physicists create problems for themselves because of personality and temperament issues. They lack good communication skill , are abrasive, disrespectful, or not willing to speak up effectively for their cause. A lot of physicist are relegated to the background or their duties very much complicated because of this. You need to be a people person. You need to express yourself effectively with a whole spectrum of people on their level including fellow physicists, any physician who shares patients with your clinic, government regulators, hospital administrators, nurses, housekeepers, security personnel, maintenance/engineering personnel, vendors as well as your clinical colleagues. If you leave a job you should be able to get a recommendation from most of the persons with whom you have consistently interacted . I add one more item, professional appearance. In this age of "dress down" culture were jeans and T-shirts seem to be the norm, in the clinic wear a clean lab coat. Always wear a shirt and tie. With meetings outside the department a suit or sport coat. You look like a bum so will you be treated.

Medical physics can be an extremely satisfying profession for the right person.

Thanks for that post gleem! That has some great advice. I'm a sophomore and currently trying to decide between medical physics and economics, and your post is swaying me toward physics!

Right now I am an Applied Physics major, and I was wondering if that is okay if I wanted to go into Medical Physics, rather than getting a normal Physics degree. With Applied Physics I could take biology/anatomy classes that would count towards the major, making it easier to graduate. Any advice?

 

[qball2]

I have just become a member of The Physics Forum. I was happy to see that there is a medical physics thread . Some of what is written below is meant to address some of the previous discussions.

There are a lot of issues associated with being a successful medical physicist; formal education, clinical training, professional status, compensation, responsibility and even personality and temperament (especially encompassing communication and leadership skills).

I am a retired clinical medical physicist having worked in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and health physics over 30 yrs. I entered the field through a NIH post doctoral fellowship. I have dealt with all these issues at one time or another.

A firm grounding is physics is essential. You must think like physicist. Medical physics is not a venue to do things by rote. You must make sure you have all the required knowledge and understanding of the pertinent physical principles employed. There is a lot of routine and yes some things can be handled by a technologist or dosimetrist but it must always be timely reviewed by a competent medical physicist before an error can cause harm.

Clinical training not only involves learning what measurements to make and how to make them but also learning aspects of the jobs and needs of the other members of the team, physician, technologist, dosimetrist etc. You have a responsibility to them to provide necessary information and guidance for them to do their job safely and with confidence. You must be able to effectively communicate with them on their terms. You respect them and they will respect you. You are ethically required to intervene on any procedure you know or suspect will cause harm. Know the limits of your authority.

A certified medical physicist is the only non physician professional to be listed in the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not commensurate with a technician status. I know some physicians subvert this. But by enlarge most in my experience treat you as a colleague. Part of this relationship depends on the physicist and his or her ability to engage the physician so that the respect is first established and then maintained. If the cards are stacked aginst this type of relationship then seek other employment.

Is a good physicist worth $170K? You betcha! Of course this is commensurate with responsibilities. One careless lapse can kill or permanently injure scores of persons. One wrong assumption in calibration through improper training or not thinking like a physicist as was reported recently in the New York Times can do the same and bring embarrassment and severe financial repercussions. I was told by a hospital administrator that the reason he made such a high salary was that he would not be respected as well by the medical staff if he didn't. Think what you may but a measure of value is determined by salary. Physicists work hard routinely working 50+ hours a week and at odd hours and more on special projects. Federal and some state regulation require that only a properly trained physicist perform certain functions.

I had mentioned responsibility before relating to the physician and technologist. But it is for the patient that you have been hired. Your hired for the patient not as an assistant to the physician. Clinical physicists have direct patient contact. Patients to you are real persons some of whom you know. You are the only one in the clinic (even a healthcare system) who can do what you do. You are unique but someone always seem to want pigeon-hole you. Once the clinic manager rejected a my request to attend a yearly professional meeting because even nurses don't get to go every year and the budget is stretched. Fortunately the radiation oncologist intervened. Physicians work on the principle that there is alway money for good cause.


Finally and this is important, A lot of physicists create problems for themselves because of personality and temperament issues. They lack good communication skill , are abrasive, disrespectful, or not willing to speak up effectively for their cause. A lot of physicist are relegated to the background or their duties very much complicated because of this. You need to be a people person. You need to express yourself effectively with a whole spectrum of people on their level including fellow physicists, any physician who shares patients with your clinic, government regulators, hospital administrators, nurses, housekeepers, security personnel, maintenance/engineering personnel, vendors as well as your clinical colleagues. If you leave a job you should be able to get a recommendation from most of the persons with whom you have consistently interacted . I add one more item, professional appearance. In this age of "dress down" culture were jeans and T-shirts seem to be the norm, in the clinic wear a clean lab coat. Always wear a shirt and tie. With meetings outside the department a suit or sport coat. You look like a bum so will you be treated.

Medical physics can be an extremely satisfying profession for the right person.

I'm going to have to call ******** here. Not one medical physicist who claimed they need a background in physics on this forum has been able to substantiate that claim with examples of how they used physics in their jobs.

 

[Choppy]

Thanks for that post gleem! That has some great advice. I'm a sophomore and currently trying to decide between medical physics and economics, and your post is swaying me toward physics!

Right now I am an Applied Physics major, and I was wondering if that is okay if I wanted to go into Medical Physics, rather than getting a normal Physics degree. With Applied Physics I could take biology/anatomy classes that would count towards the major, making it easier to graduate. Any advice?

In general applied physics is an acceptable background. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, most of medical physics is applied physics. That being said, I don't know what constitutes an "applied physics" degree at your school. I'm assuming that it's a regular honours physics degree, with perhaps more labs and electronics, rather than senior undergrad courses in things like cosmology or general relativity. A quick email to some of the medical physics graduate programs that you might be considering can let you know for sure.

 

[gleem]

Thanks for that post gleem! That has some great advice. I'm a sophomore and currently trying to decide between medical physics and economics, and your post is swaying me toward physics!

Right now I am an Applied Physics major, and I was wondering if that is okay if I wanted to go into Medical Physics, rather than getting a normal Physics degree. With Applied Physics I could take biology/anatomy classes that would count towards the major, making it easier to graduate. Any advice?

In general applied physics is an acceptable background. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, most of medical physics is applied physics. That being said, I don't know what constitutes an "applied physics" degree at your school. I'm assuming that it's a regular honours physics degree, with perhaps more labs and electronics, rather than senior undergrad courses in things like cosmology or general relativity. A quick email to some of the medical physics graduate programs that you might be considering can let you know for sure.

(

I'm sorry that I did not get back to you sooner. I am in an area with sporadic access to the internet. My responses may take a while (days?) and discussions will be protracted. If necessary I do have fairly prompt access to a reliable email service for text only messages.

I agree that applied physics (aside: There seems to be some controversy about using these words together.) is an appropriate program for pursuing a career in medical physics (aside: again?). The A&P course is good to get out of the way. I concur with Choppy with the additional suggestion that you look for several graduate programs and their research activities that interest you. You might find some electives that will provide you with additional "tools" for your future endeavors. You never know what the future holds for you so prepare as best you can. The more you know the better.

Good Luck.

 

[NeoDevin]

I'm going to have to call ******** here. Not one medical physicist who claimed they need a background in physics on this forum has been able to substantiate that claim with examples of how they used physics in their jobs.

You seem to think that because one is not doing "fundamental" physics research that one is not actually doing physics. Applied physics and computational physics (which covers a large percentage of medical physics) are still physics. My research consists almost entirely of computational solutions to E/M problems. Would you consider this to "need a background in physics"?

Magnetic/RF shielding, radiation shielding, and dosimetry calculation are three areas of clinical medical physics that require a background in physics. If you're verifying a dosimetry calculation, and there is a discrepancy, it is important to know why there is a difference in order to know the clinical significance. It is impossible to know 'why' without at least a basic understanding of radiation transport. When designing/testing radiation shielding, it is important to know how much scatter radiation there will be in any given direction to know how much shielding will be required and where to make radiation measurements (also how to position a radiation machine in the first place to minimize shielding requirements). In order to design/test magnetic for an MRI, it is important to know how magnetic and RF fields interact with whatever shielding material you intend to use. All of these require at least a basic understanding of physics. For certain you won't use everything you learned in undergrad physics on every problem in medical physics, but the vast majority of it gets used somewhere. And that is just clinical duties...

For research there are (to list a few): Image reconstruction algorithms, new dosimetry algorithms, MRI pulse sequences, linac design, linac-MR. All of these require a thourough understanding of the underlying physics.

I hope we can finally put the claim that "medical physics doesn't require any physics knowledge" to rest.

 

[AtomicPile]

Medical Physics Job Postings

Has anyone noticed that the medical physics job postings are drying up? Right now all I am seeing are lots and lots of residency ads. No permanent work, just residencies.

What about the AAPM website? Do you think the AAPM has given up on 'members only' job postings?

 

[Robot86]

Hello. Are there people who works with Penelope(Monte carlo calculation program)?

 

[rakhaa]

You're a MedPhys grad student and you want to buy ONE of the following books ... what would be your pick and why?

I need to decide in 2 days!

1) Physics of Radiology, Fourth Edition
by Harold Elford Johns, John Robert Cunningham

2)The Physics of Radiation Therapy: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management
by Faiz M Khan.

Thanks.

 

[Choppy]

Both are classics.

Johns and Cunningham was last published in 1983 or 1984 I believe, so it's certainly dated. It's considered a "bible" of medical physics though, so the advantage of having it is that the figures in it are what all of your instructors are likely to be familiar with.

I probably open my copy of Khan more often, and he has a new edition out in 2009, I believe, so it's more up to date. It also tends to be a little more practical.

If you're looking for a great go-to book for all things medical physics, you might want to consider The Handbook of Radiotherapy Physics by Mayles, Nahum, and Rosenwald.

 

[qball2]

You're a MedPhys grad student and you want to buy ONE of the following books ... what would be your pick and why?

I need to decide in 2 days!

1) Physics of Radiology, Fourth Edition
by Harold Elford Johns, John Robert Cunningham

2)The Physics of Radiation Therapy: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management
by Faiz M Khan.

Thanks.

Johns and Cunningham is a much better book for a student. It will help build your intuition about the physical processes that are important in radiology and radiation therapy. Khan contains a lot of fancy diagrams, plots, and data that might be useful for a clinician as a reference but it won't help you learn the material unless you love memorizing raw data and equations.

So my answer is: Johns and Cunningham now, Khan later.

 

[Robot86]

Great! The question sunk into Oblivion=(

 

[Choppy]

Great! The question sunk into Oblivion=(

I replied to you via PM.

 

[Catsworth]

"Great! The question sunk into Oblivion=( "

Hey, I'd like to know the answer to this too.

And by the way, can anyone lend some insight into the hostile tone of this thread?

Meow,
Catsworth

 

[Norman]

And by the way, can anyone lend some insight into the hostile tone of this thread?

There seemed to be a few members who are really upset about the Medical Physics education system and/or whether Medical Physics is actually Physics (using their own personal, generally unaccepted definition of physics). They are the ones "yelling the loudest" to make sure everyone hears them. Which is fine. This is the internet and you should ALWAYS take everything on the internet with a healthy serving of skepticism until you review the facts and data personally.

There seems to be, in general, two sides, each with what seems a vested interest in the topic. Why exactly one side is so extremely hostile is unknown to me.

 

[qball2]

There seemed to be a few members who are really upset about the Medical Physics education system and/or whether Medical Physics is actually Physics (using their own personal, generally unaccepted definition of physics). They are the ones "yelling the loudest" to make sure everyone hears them. Which is fine. This is the internet and you should ALWAYS take everything on the internet with a healthy serving of skepticism until you review the facts and data personally.

There seems to be, in general, two sides, each with what seems a vested interest in the topic. Why exactly one side is so extremely hostile is unknown to me.

One side is generally hostile because the other side is generally oblivious or perhaps willfully ignorant. I recently attended a talk from a noted medical physicist who said himself during the talk: MEDICAL PHYSICISTS HAVE ALREADY BECOME TECHNICIANS. There is no doubt about it as many medical physicists are beginning to realize.

The other side (the willfully ignorant one) does not look at the larger picture. Rather, they draw only on anecdotal evidence from the own subjective experience. When challenged they respond with passive-aggressive language with condescending overtones. They are wrong, but they will never admit to it.

One faction is particularly loud and aggressive because we want to see change in the medical physics community. Only by admitting the shortcomings of the field can it be improved. The problems will not go away by ignoring them. One can imagine a future medical physicists are licensed with minimal training, perhaps only by the vendor whose machines they are responsible for. We would rather maintain the position of medical physicist as a highly trained, problem solving professional who applies his or her knowledge towards solving medical problems, not a technician who simply calibrates machines and schedules patients (as many medical physicists now do).

We claim that there's no physics in current medical physics because there's simply not. Go read any radiation oncology paper and compare it to recently published physics literature and then I defy you to claim that medical physicists are doing physics research. They are not.

The research done in medical physics should be called "medical physics research", where "medical physics" is now read as a single term that defines whatever research is done by medical physicists; it is separate and distinct from the research done in physics, and that is fine, but it needs to be made clear.

Another reason we are so vocal is that many students are drawn into medical physics without a good handle on what it actually consists of. Furthermore, medical physics programs mislead students into thinking physics is the best preparation for their work when in reality biomedical engineering graduates are better trained for medical physics graduate school. Maybe they haven't learned the Schrodinger equation, but they don't need it.

Finally, we are vocal because we believe there is in fact an oversupply of medical physics graduates and that programs and bodies such as the AAPM falsely perpetuate the notion that there is a shortage of medical physicists.

 

[Norman]

Just to be upfront, I have no stake in the Medical Physics game. I work in nuclear physics and space radiation.

We claim that there's no physics in current medical physics because there's simply not. Go read any radiation oncology paper and compare it to recently published physics literature and then I defy you to claim that medical physicists are doing physics research. They are not.

I have no clue why anyone would read a paper on radiation oncology and expect to find physics in it. That is like picking up a paper on nuclear physics and expecting it to be about radar signatures. They are completely unrelated.

Another reason we are so vocal is that many students are drawn into medical physics without a good handle on what it actually consists of.

Is this not the students fault? There own notions and ideas are only their own. If they do not understand what they are getting into before they start the program it is their own fault.
In addition, can you back up your assertion of "many students" with any sort of hard numbers? Statements of opinion masked as fact make me very suspicious of anything else you say.

Furthermore, medical physics programs mislead students into thinking physics is the best preparation for their work when in reality biomedical engineering graduates are better trained for medical physics graduate school. Maybe they haven't learned the Schrodinger equation, but they don't need it.

Surely there are multiple ways to go about preparing for any graduate program that does not have an exact undergraduate program backing up the graduate program. Again, I think you are stating opinion as fact. Can you prove that biomedical engineering is a better background? Seems to me you are providing a lot of

anecdotal evidence from the own subjective experience.