Physics Medical Physics is an exciting field

[Clancy Brown]

Atomicpile, you can reach me here << e-mail address deleted by berkeman >>

 

[berkeman]

Atomicpile, you can reach me here << e-mail address deleted by berkeman >>

Please send e-mail addresses by PM. We discourage posting e-mail addresses in the open forums.

 

[AtomicPile]

I actually came across the profession Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP) quite by mistake. I have done a great deal of research into the profession in the last three weeks, and am meeting my State Government's director in Radiation Oncology in the coming weeks to discuss the profession futher.

From my perspective (down under), there is a shortage of ROMPs; why would the director be so keen to meet with me and inform and show me aspects of the profession first hand. The shortage forecast is said to be so severe, that IAEA has provided a training program manual free to the public as a framework for new entrants to the profession.

... I can make more as a Biomedical engineer as I would as a ROMP and with far less training.

Interesting point. A biomedical engineer is a more versatile job, why consider medical physics? Why start a program of study for medical physics as you said earlier? Have you changed your mind?

 

[Clancy Brown]

Cool, thanks for the correction Berkeman.

Interesting point. A biomedical engineer is a more versatile job, why consider medical physics? Why start a program of study for medical physics as you said earlier? Have you changed your mind?

I wanted to study Science/Engineering degree, my local campus only offers Health Sciences, where the fun stuff ie Physics (Quantum computers, Photonics) is offered at the University's other campus.

I stumbled across Medical Physics, as it was advertised at the same location as a Biomedical Engineering vacancy. Intrigued I researched and found that it combined my interests of physics, engineering and patient care all in one little profession.

Plus I want an electron tree and one can not have too many options.

 

[AtomicPile]

I stumbled across Medical Physics, as it was advertised at the same location as a Biomedical Engineering vacancy. Intrigued I researched and found that it combined my interests of physics, engineering and patient care all in one little profession.

Do your research. Long term unemployment because your chosen profession is not desired is not a lot of fun.

Plus I want an electron tree and one can not have too many options.

Use your favorite search engine to find a lichtenberg sculpture/lichtenberg figures.

 

[rakhaa]

Hi everyone,

I urgently need to hear your thoughts on a career path I am considering. I am considering to return to school for a medical physics degree, starting with a Master's, finishing the coursework, and continue to directly work on my PhD project - so at least 4 years (followed by residency or postdoc). Here is my background:

-Bachelor's of engineering in Engineering Physics
-Master's of engineering in Biomedical Engineering (thesis on nanoparticles for biomed applications)
-Work experience in finance and management consulting

I basically completed an M. Eng. in BME and then went to work for a year and a half. I was a good student.

I want to return to science and am looking for PhD programs. Of course continuing in BME or some project related to nanotech is a natural option and I know many profs with whom I could work. But to do what afterwards? BME being so large and the nanotech side so new without an established industry.

I have the impression that MedPhys - In addition to being highly compatible with my educational background and areas of interest - is a more established field, with less uncertainty than BME or Physics: You are board accredited, you must graduate from CAMPEP institutions, you know pretty much where you will work, you are less subjected to economic cycles, it's a specific area with a limited number of specialists, my background in engineering will open me the doors of industry if needed, the salary is decent and stable (unemployment is rare) ... in other words it seems to be a safe discipline ... and I find it very interesting (in fact I hesitated between MedPhys and BME before my master's).

My questions, thoughts, and concerns:
-Is my perception right?
-Is it worth another 4-5 years (minimum) with at least 8 months of heavy coursework? does the security and certainty I will find after the graduate degree compensate for the work experience I will not get meantime.
-A PhD in Biomed would not have the coursework that MedPhys has.
-If I'm putting all this effort in a terminal degree, I want to be sure that I can breath afterward: Get a decent job (interest, hours, salary, etc) and not risk losing it every time the stock market goes down or when jobs are outsourced (or restructured) to a cheap labor country.
-I can work pretty much anywhere in the world: wherever there is a strong hospital.
-I can also do other things through a MedPhys degree: teach, industry, etc.

I'm strongly leaning towards doing it because I consider it meaningful work ... but I don't want to graduate and find out there are no jobs or that the latter are low paying, and that I was just an idealist, disconnected from reality!

Thank you for your time
Rakhaa.

 

[Choppy]

I have the impression that MedPhys - In addition to being highly compatible with my educational background and areas of interest - is a more established field, with less uncertainty than BME or Physics: You are board accredited, you must graduate from CAMPEP institutions, you know pretty much where you will work, you are less subjected to economic cycles, it's a specific area with a limited number of specialists, my background in engineering will open me the doors of industry if needed, the salary is decent and stable (unemployment is rare) ... in other words it seems to be a safe discipline ... and I find it very interesting (in fact I hesitated between MedPhys and BME before my master's).

My questions, thoughts, and concerns:
-Is my perception right?

More or less, but there are some points that perhaps require clarification. Medical physics isn't necessarily a meal ticket. Medical physics is a profession in the healthcare field and as such it is relatively insulated from economic swings compared to other industries. That does not mean that it is completely insulated. If you read back a few posts, you can see the discussion a few posters and I have been having about the job market for medical physicists over the coming years. Right now there's a lag in hiring due the slow economy. In my opinion though, this is a good time to get into the field as over the coming decade we're likely to see a significant increase in demand for the profession.

-Is it worth another 4-5 years (minimum) with at least 8 months of heavy coursework? does the security and certainty I will find after the graduate degree compensate for the work experience I will not get meantime.

That's a tough question. The PhD will be hard work and you won't earn a lot of money while doing it. And there are no guarantees. For me it turned out to be completely worth it, though.

-If I'm putting all this effort in a terminal degree, I want to be sure that I can breath afterward: Get a decent job (interest, hours, salary, etc) and not risk losing it every time the stock market goes down or when jobs are outsourced (or restructured) to a cheap labor country.

As I said, there are no guarantees. I don't see too many physicists losing their jobs as a result of the economic downturn, although in all fairness there are rare cases where hospitals have laid people off. The degree and certification aren't going to do the work for you. The biggest factors that medical physicists have keeping us in demand are the rising cancer rates due to the aging population.

-I can work pretty much anywhere in the world: wherever there is a strong hospital.

It's not exactly like you can pick a spot on a map and say I want to go here. What typically happens when you graduate from a medical physics program is that you will start networking to find a residency or post-doctoral program. Then you go where you get in. Sometimes those jobs aren't in optimal locations and they require moving across the counrty. And if you're like me and prefer living in smaller rural areas, your options can be limited. You may want to talk this over if there's a significant other in your life.

-I can also do other things through a MedPhys degree: teach, industry, etc.

Yes. In fact it's not uncommon for some students to embark on entreprenurial ventures based on their projects. Some of those ones do quite well.

Hope this helps.

 

[rakhaa]

Thanks for your answers and advice Choppy,

I think that if I pursue a PhD in nanotechnology, BME, or NeuroEngineering (which are also very interesting), chances are there will be less coursework and therefore it may be shorter. The problem is that there is a higher risk of finishing school and not getting a good job than if I graduate from MedPhys. There are no established industries in those fields and although you will probably find a job, the latter will not be very well paying and subjected to economic swings ... at least more so than in the case of MedPhys (which is not recession proof either from what you've told me).

The only problem is that after 4 years of engineering, 3 years of master's with intense research (yes the average duration in our BME department is 2.8 years) I still have to foresee about 5 years. Also, the idea that my master's may have been in vain and that I'll be starting at the same level a bachelor holder would, is a little frustrating!

I'd like to think that with my BME background, I will be able to do interesting and multidisciplinary research and that MedPhys can really be fused with BME in some respects, especially through nanotech and medical imaging. Do you see interesting emerging research trends in the discipline? Are there indicators that the field will witness significant breakthroughs or novelties in the coming decade (requiring a more multidisciplinary approach)?

Do you have approximate numbers for salaries (Master and PhD) for beginners as well as in mid career? I suppose residents don't make much (50k max) but that's ok. I've heard it's a well paying field, at least relative to engineering.

I am considering the McGill program as well as Duke, which seems to emphasize "frontier science" i.e. research in emerging areas.

Thank you again,
Rakhaa.

 

[Choppy]

Thanks for your answers and advice Choppy,

The only problem is that after 4 years of engineering, 3 years of master's with intense research (yes the average duration in our BME department is 2.8 years) I still have to foresee about 5 years. Also, the idea that my master's may have been in vain and that I'll be starting at the same level a bachelor holder would, is a little frustrating!

I don't think those years will have been a waste of time. However, changing to a different field will require a larger time investment. The thing is, those 5 years are going to pass anyway. Where do you want to be when they're over?

I'd like to think that with my BME background, I will be able to do interesting and multidisciplinary research and that MedPhys can really be fused with BME in some respects, especially through nanotech and medical imaging. Do you see interesting emerging research trends in the discipline? Are there indicators that the field will witness significant breakthroughs or novelties in the coming decade (requiring a more multidisciplinary approach)?

Absolutely. MRI development, for example, is one branch of BME that comes together with medical physics. MRI as both a diagnostic and treatment planning modality has a tremendous future, in my opinion. What I would recommend is that you speak to some of the professors at the institutions you're considering applying to about potential projects and how your specific background will compliment them.

Do you have approximate numbers for salaries (Master and PhD) for beginners as well as in mid career? I suppose residents don't make much (50k max) but that's ok. I've heard it's a well paying field, at least relative to engineering.

The best numbers that I'm aware of are in the AAPM annual salary survey. This is available to anyone with a student membership (I don't remember exact costs, but its in the ballpark of $25).

 

[HungryChemist]

I found some interesting blog and felt like sharing it here. Please, read the user comments to peak inside of the true stories of medical physics job market.

http://healthcareers.about.com/b/2009/07/22/medical-physicists-careers.htm

Medical Physics job market is saturated. I know too many campep phd graduates struggling to land on a job after a year of their graduation. My prediction is that it's only going to get worse.

Most recent graduates are having trouble finding a job, if you're going after maseter's degree in medical physics, expect the worst. Because most open positions require ABR certificate, and for this reason recent graduates are forced to apply for residency position and the competition for residency spots are getting fierce. So if you're master student, you would have to compete against phd students and if you look up profiles of current residents in place like stanford/ucsd/mdacc/mgh/ucsf/uwm/etc...there are no masters. Then why the heck is campep accredited institution is big on admitting master student?

Also, I did some back of the envelope calculation too (like Choppy did). There are about 25 campep grad schools, so assuming each school accepts about 10 students per year (they do more, but to be safe, let's say 10) that means there are about 250 students graduating. There are only about 30 residency programs and most programs accepts two residents per year. After 2014 (year in which residency must be required to be board certified), this means that 250 students will compete for 60 or so spots. Competition for residency now is much higher due to non-campep applicants but even if they select only campep applicants, the competition is still fierce. One might argue, not everyone is going to apply for residency. Let me say it again, there's no job opportunity unless you have ABR certificate, and to have clinical experience for you to take ABR test, your only option is residency, so there will be elimination process, everyone will bleed for residency spots.

Of course, I can't say my personal experience born out of a few acquaintance of my current and former student represents the whole community. But calling 70 different position to hear 'No we're not hiring' got to be something. I will bet that It WILL get worse.

 

[Mcfly11]

Also, I did some back of the envelope calculation too (like Choppy did). There are about 25 campep grad schools, so assuming each school accepts about 10 students per year (they do more, but to be safe, let's say 10) that means there are about 250 students graduating. There are only about 30 residency programs and most programs accepts two residents per year. After 2014 (year in which residency must be required to be board certified), this means that 250 students will compete for 60 or so spots.
.

I may be wrong, but I think you are overestimating the number of students graduating from CAMPEP programs who are competing for residences on a yearly basis. I think it is generally well known that it'll be considerably tougher to get a good job in the field nowadays with only an MSc, and that PhD's are generally necessary for residencies. Of the 25 CAMPEP programs, I believe 7 of them only offer MSc degrees, so there are only about 18 PhD granting institutions in North America. Of these 18, 7 are located in Canada, and I don't think a single one of them accepts 10 students per year. According to their respective websites, McGill only has 5 PhD students, U of Alberta has 12 PhD students, U of Calgary has 6, and Carleton has 15 to name a few. This means each school only gives out a couple of PhD's per year, if any.

I realize enrollments in the States are generally larger than Canadian schools, but my point is that only 11 of them grant PhD's. I doubt there are much more than 100 PhD's given out per year by those 11 programs. Also, a percentage of those may pursue non-clinical jobs that don't require ABR certification etc. This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think there are anywhere close to 250 qualified applicants with PhD's competing for residencies each year. I'm by no means an expert in this matter though, so perhaps someone who knows better than I (Choppy?) can correct me if I'm way off the mark on this one.

Of course, you also considered those with MSc degrees, while I'm considering only those with PhD's, because I think it is becoming more and more of a fact that PhD's are necessary to become a medical physicist. I've been wondering if the shortage of medical physics jobs people have been discussing actually exists, or whether it only exists for those people with MSc degrees and no residency. Are there many people who have taken the recommended path of CAMPEP PhD followed by CAMPEP residency who are unable to find jobs? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'd be quite interested to find out.

 

[qball]

I may be wrong, but I think you are overestimating the number of students graduating from CAMPEP programs who are competing for residences on a yearly basis. I think it is generally well known that it'll be considerably tougher to get a good job in the field nowadays with only an MSc, and that PhD's are generally necessary for residencies. Of the 25 CAMPEP programs, I believe 7 of them only offer MSc degrees, so there are only about 18 PhD granting institutions in North America. Of these 18, 7 are located in Canada, and I don't think a single one of them accepts 10 students per year. According to their respective websites, McGill only has 5 PhD students, U of Alberta has 12 PhD students, U of Calgary has 6, and Carleton has 15 to name a few. This means each school only gives out a couple of Ph.D's per year, if any.

I don't know what enrollments are like in the States, but even if they're much larger than Canada's, I doubt there are much more than 100 PhD's given out per year by those 11 programs. Also, a percentage of those may pursue non-clinical jobs that don't require ABR certification etc. This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think there are anywhere close to 250 qualified applicants with PhD's competing for residencies each year. I'm by no means an expert in this matter though, so perhaps someone who knows better than I (Choppy?) can correct me if I'm way off the mark on this one.

You're forgetting that people from other fields also compete for medical physics residencies. In fact, all of the medical physics residents I have met over the last few years have had Ph.d.'s but have not come from medical physics backgrounds.

 

[Mcfly11]

You're forgetting that people from other fields also compete for medical physics residencies. In fact, all of the medical physics residents I have met over the last few years have had Ph.d.'s but have not come from medical physics backgrounds.

That may be true, but would you not agree that if you hold a medical physics PhD, you have a significant advantage over all of the people applying for residencies without one? Most of the advertisements for residences I've seen state that they give preference to people with medical physics degrees.

Anyway, I think my point is still valid. Perhaps there is a large volume of people applying, but still a small volume of well qualified candidates. If you have a medical physics PhD, and decent qualifications (ie publications, good grades etc) then you have a pretty decent shot at getting a residency. Who cares if 1000 people are applying for the job, if you're more qualified than them.

Again, I'm not an expert in this, so I welcome feedback on these opinions.

 

[Choppy]

Where I think HungryChemist has a point is in the fact that the number of accredited residencies in north america is currently too small to produce the number of qualified medical physicists needed to satisfy the demand over the coming decade. Therein, you have a shortage of qualified medical physicists.

An interesting artile from Physics Today (May 2009) was posted up on a blog, that discusses this:
http://www.mdphysics.com/new-abr-certification-rule/

 

[qball]

That may be true, but would you not agree that if you hold a medical physics PhD, you have a significant advantage over all of the people applying for residencies without one? Most of the advertisements for residences I've seen state that they give preference to people with medical physics degrees.

Anyway, I think my point is still valid. Perhaps there is a large volume of people applying, but still a small volume of well qualified candidates. If you have a medical physics PhD, and decent qualifications (ie publications, good grades etc) then you have a pretty decent shot at getting a residency. Who cares if 1000 people are applying for the job, if you're more qualified than them.

Again, I'm not an expert in this, so I welcome feedback on these opinions.

I have not seen job listings claiming to give preference to people with medical physics Ph.d.s. What I have seen are listings that give preference to ABR certified candidates who have completed CAMPEP residencies. You do not need a medical physics Ph.d. to have either of those qualifications. This is the reason for the 2012/2014 initiative: it's going to make it harder for people outside medical physics to get jobs in the field.

 

[Mcfly11]

I have not seen job listings claiming to give preference to people with medical physics Ph.d.s. What I have seen are listings that give preference to ABR certified candidates who have completed CAMPEP residencies. You do not need a medical physics Ph.d. to have either of those qualifications. This is the reason for the 2012/2014 initiative: it's going to make it harder for people outside medical physics to get jobs in the field.

You're kind of reinforcing my point here, althought I was speaking specifically about entry into residencies, not any job. I'm saying that it is considerably easier to get into a CAMPEP residency if you have a CAMPEP PhD. As you said, it's not necessary to get a PhD to get into a residency, but I'm sure you'll agree that someone with a CAMPEP PhD has a significantly better shot of landing a residency position than someone with another degree nowadays. As you said, many jobs prefer applicants to have completed a CAMPEP residency, so I think it is true that a PhD improves your job prospects, if only in this roundabout way. Although I have to disagree with you on one point...I've seen several advertisements that state they prefer a PhD to an MSc.

People here often discuss how difficult it is to get a job in medical physics. The point that I'm trying to make is that although it may be difficult for some people (ie people from other physics-related fields) to find jobs, I think a person who follows the recommended route of CAMPEP PhD followed by CAMPEP residency will find a job reasonably easily. Perhaps my own experience is limited, but I haven't seen any people with these qualifications complain about the lack of jobs.

 

[qball]

You're kind of reinforcing my point here, althought I was speaking specifically about entry into residencies, not any job. I'm saying that it is considerably easier to get into a CAMPEP residency if you have a CAMPEP PhD. As you said, it's not necessary to get a PhD to get into a residency, but I'm sure you'll agree that someone with a CAMPEP PhD has a significantly better shot of landing a residency position than someone with another degree nowadays. As you said, many jobs prefer applicants to have completed a CAMPEP residency, so I think it is true that a PhD improves your job prospects, if only in this roundabout way. Although I have to disagree with you on one point...I've seen several advertisements that state they prefer a PhD to an MSc.

People here often discuss how difficult it is to get a job in medical physics. The point that I'm trying to make is that although it may be difficult for some people (ie people from other physics-related fields) to find jobs, I think a person who follows the recommended route of CAMPEP PhD followed by CAMPEP residency will find a job reasonably easily. Perhaps my own experience is limited, but I haven't seen any people with these qualifications complain about the lack of jobs.

Although my experience is somewhat limited, as I've said all the residents I've ever met have had Physics Ph.d.'s and not medical physics Ph.d.'s. Think about what this means. Say not all medical physics graduates decide to compete for residences; say it's only half. There are a lot more physics graduates every year then medical physics, but let's suppose that only a few percent of them apply for residency positions. If spots in residencies are filled by equal number of physics graduates and medical physics graduates that means you have an overall lower chance of getting accepted into a residency vs. if you were a student of pure physics.

While I don't know what the true numbers are like I don't think this is too far off.

 

[Mcfly11]

Although my experience is somewhat limited, as I've said all the residents I've ever met have had Physics Ph.d.'s and not medical physics Ph.d.'s. Think about what this means. Say not all medical physics graduates decide to compete for residences; say it's only half. There are a lot more physics graduates every year then medical physics, but let's suppose that only a few percent of them apply for residency positions. If spots in residencies are filled by equal number of physics graduates and medical physics graduates that means you have an overall lower chance of getting accepted into a residency vs. if you were a student of pure physics.

While I don't know what the true numbers are like I don't think this is too far off.

I think our opinions are different because we both have had vastly different personal experiences. I haven't met a resident who didn't have a medical physics PhD, and you haven't met one who did have one. I guess we're at opposite ends of the spectrum haha. I admit my sample size isn't very large, I think I've only met 8 or 9.

Anyways, I still believe that on average a person with a medical physics PhD has a significantly better chance at landing a residency than someone with a pure physics PhD. I think if two candidates are otherwise equal (ie research quality, academic records etc) but one has a degree in med phys, and one in pure physics, then 9 times out of 10 the position would be given to the person with experience in medical physics. Either way, I agree that obtaining a residency is way more difficult than it probably should be.

I'd love to see statistics from a few residency programs regarding how many applications they receive each year, and what the spread of degrees (ie med phys vs phys, MSc vs PhD) is. Would also be interesting to see which degrees have the highest acceptance rate. I've heard that they get ~100 applications for 1 or 2 openings quite often, but I'm curious as to how many of those 100 are very well qualified.

 

[qball]

I think our opinions are different because we both have had vastly different personal experiences. I haven't met a resident who didn't have a medical physics PhD, and you haven't met one who did have one. I guess we're at opposite ends of the spectrum haha. I admit my sample size isn't very large, I think I've only met 8 or 9.

Anyways, I still believe that on average a person with a medical physics PhD has a significantly better chance at landing a residency than someone with a pure physics PhD. I think if two candidates are otherwise equal (ie research quality, academic records etc) but one has a degree in med phys, and one in pure physics, then 9 times out of 10 the position would be given to the person with experience in medical physics. Either way, I agree that obtaining a residency is way more difficult than it probably should be.

I'd love to see statistics from a few residency programs regarding how many applications they receive each year, and what the spread of degrees (ie med phys vs phys, MSc vs PhD) is. Would also be interesting to see which degrees have the highest acceptance rate. I've heard that they get ~100 applications for 1 or 2 openings quite often, but I'm curious as to how many of those 100 are very well qualified.

Programs must have strange definitions of "well-qualified" then. I would think anyone who completed a Ph.d. in medical physics would be many times more qualified than someone who did not. However, the fact that anyone with a non-medical physics degree can get into a residency says that this isn't so. You have to assume at least one person with a medical physics background is applying for any given medical physics residency slot. If the residencies still decide that a person with a physics Ph.d. is still more qualified than you are, what does that say about your degree? Furthermore, the residency program I'm familiar with not only has been accepting a large number a pure physics graduates, it also requires them to take medical physics courses for the duration of their residency. So instead of accepting medical physics graduates who already have the requisite training they accept graduates from other disciplines and train them. What the hell is the point of the medical physics degree?

Think about it this way. Say there was an opening for a plumbing job. Say 100 people apply and of those 100 people 1 has a degree in plumbing and 99 come from other fields like carpentry, electrical work, etc. Presumably that person with knowledge of plumbing is a superior applicant compared to the others. This should be a no-brainer, right? But suppose that company chooses to hire a carpenter for the job, then train him to be a plumber. Suppose this happens repeatedly. What does that say about having a degree in plumbing?

 

[Mcfly11]

Programs must have strange definitions of "well-qualified" then. I would think anyone who completed a Ph.d. in medical physics would be many times more qualified than someone who did not. However, the fact that anyone with a non-medical physics degree can get into a residency says that this isn't so. You have to assume at least one person with a medical physics background is applying for any given medical physics residency slot. If the residencies still decide that a person with a physics Ph.d. is still more qualified than you are, what does that say about your degree? Furthermore, the residency program I'm familiar with not only has been accepting a large number a pure physics graduates, it also requires them to take medical physics courses for the duration of their residency. So instead of accepting medical physics graduates who already have the requisite training they accept graduates from other disciplines and train them. What the hell is the point of the medical physics degree?

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. It seems as though the definition of 'well-qualified' isn't remotely uniform across North America. The programs I'm familiar with are basically the opposite of the ones you're familiar with.

I should mention, if I haven't already, that I'm Canadian, so I'm really only familiar with the Canadian programs that are available, and only to a limited extent. From looking at their websites though, it seems like its generally true in Canada that a medical physics degree puts you at a significant advantage in terms of getting a residency.

I assumed that it was a similar situation in the States, since CAMPEP is a North America-wide body, but apparently I may be wrong in that assumption. The situation you've described seems like a bit of a mess to me, and I can definitely understand your frustration with it. On the bright side, maybe that program you're familiar with is the exception, rather than the rule. That's why I'd love to see stats from a few different residencies.

 

[Choppy]

There are a few point's I'd like to address in the recent discussion in this thread.

First of all, for a student who wants to get into medical physics, the ideal path is to obtain a PhD from an accredited program. I haven't known personally any PhD graduates from accredited programs who've had trouble getting a medical physics position/residency after graduation. I have seen some MSc graduates have a more difficult time finding positions, but for the most part this has meant that they didn't get their first choice of city to live in. [We're looking at a sample size of ~ 50 over the past seven years.]

Second, as with any career, it's not a case of jumping through the right hoops to get the prize. Obtaining a PhD from an accredited program is not going to guarantee you a residency. Getting into an accredited residency is not going to guarantee that you pass your certification exams. Passing your certification exams is not going to guarantee you a perfect job for the rest of your life.

Third, residencies can come in different forms. Some institutions will, for example, offer a residency combined with what is essentially a post-doctoral research position. And if the post-doc position requires a specific skill set (say for example a background in compuational physics or image processing), candidates from areas outside of a standard medical physics background may be considered and even chosen over those from accredited programs. It is worth noting that this situation will not qualify the candidate for certification under the new rules.

Fourth: some of my personal insight into the hiring process for residencies. Typically, by the closing date the institution will have received a large number (say 50-100) CVs. The vast majority of these are not qualified for the position in that they have no medical physics (or at least medical physics-related) background at all. A short list of qualified candidates is then made. Now, most institutions that offer residencies are also affiliated with a graduate program, so from what I've seen, the highest ranked candidates will often come from the school's own program because there's a lot less risk in hiring someone you've known for the past four years. PhDs are preferred over MScs. Candidates from accredited programs are preferred over non-accredited ones.

Fifth, with respect to the ABR and CCPM requiring candidates from accredited programs, you have to remember that these organizations are tasked with certifying competance in the field. The reason why candidates' backgrounds are considered is because it is recognized that performance on a single exam alone cannot guarantee competance. It is accepted that you need experience in the field. But even with the current experience requirements, that pass rates are very low (in the 50 - 60% range for first time oral takers). Accreditation cerifies that a candidate has a broad enough experience base to demonstrate competance in the field. It also helps protect the residents so that they don't end up doing 2 years of basic QA work without any real training.

 

[ksubbara]

I am a new member of this forum. I graduated with a Ph.D in condensed matter physics 13 years ago. I have been working in the software industry ever since. I am looking to start a new career in Medical Physics. What are my options ? Where and how do I start ? Any advice will be appreciated.

 

[Choppy]

I am a new member of this forum. I graduated with a Ph.D in condensed matter physics 13 years ago. I have been working in the software industry ever since. I am looking to start a new career in Medical Physics. What are my options ? Where and how do I start ? Any advice will be appreciated.

While some people with PhDs in other branches of phyiscs are able to find junior physicist or resident positions, the competition for these jobs is fierce and you have to compete with people that are coming from accredited graduate programs in medical physics. Some institutions will offer post-doctoral positions that transition into residencies and will sometimes accept candidates who do not have a medical physics background.

The most common path I've seen for people in your position though, is to go through an accredited master's program and then move into a residency.

 

[rakhaa]

Hi everyone,

Are there any Medical Physicists here who work in R&D, as in scientists or engineers in the design and development of new MedPhys related products. I know there are some big companies in this industry: Elekta, Siemens, Varian, etc.

What is their perception of a Medical Physicist, compared to that of an engineer or just general physicist? Are medical physicist employed in these organizations?

Rakhaa.

 

[Choppy]

Hi Rakhaa,

Companies like these do employ medical physicists. Medical physicists are involved in both research and development and in customer support - once a company develops a product physicists are then needed to explain it to other physicists and to trouble shoot. Such companies will employ physicists and engineers with backgrounds in other areas as well and this usually depends on the particular products they are attempting to develop and the particular specialties needed.

 

[Clinac]

Can anyone please explain the basic concept of dose gradients as applied to the gamma index where used with Dose difference and DTA etc.

 

[Choppy]

Can anyone please explain the basic concept of dose gradients as applied to the gamma index where used with Dose difference and DTA etc.

Conceptually, the gamma concept is used for comparing two data sets. Examples might be a 2D portal image prediction vs. a measured image, or a water tank scan taken presently vs. one taken at the time of commissioning. Either way you have a reference data set
D_r(r_r)
and a comparison data set
D_c(r_c).

The concept suggests defining an ellipsoid of acceptance in the dose phase space around the reference data set. (You can imagine it for a 1D scan by plotting dose on the y-axis against position on the x-axis. Then draw ellipsoids around the reference data set with your dose acceptance criterion and distance-to-agreement criterion on the semi-major and semi minor axes.) For each point in the reference set you then search the comparison data set for the point the minimum "phase-distance" away (ie. try to see if the closest point in the comparison data set falls inside the acceptance ellipsiod). Mathematically you ascribe a value to this - your gamma - which is less than or equal to 1 for acceptance and > 1 otherwise.

\gamma(r_r) = min|_{r_c}{\GAMMA(D_c,r_c)}

where
\GAMMA(D_c,r_c) = SQRT{ (\delta r)^2/(dta)^2 + (\delta D)^2/(AD)^2}

dta = acceptable distance to agreement
AD = acceptable dose difference

(Apologies for the crappy formatting. I don't type out expressions in HTML too often.)

It's worth noting that there are more rigorous algorithms out there. As I've described it, the gamma is suceptable, for example, to sampling artefacts.

 

[Clinac]

Thanks choppy that helps a lot but how and what are high and low dose gradients as used with DTA and percentage dose difference respectively, thanks, just hard to get my head around this topic.

 

[Choppy]

In a high dose gradient region (say on a field edge) it's likely that if you define acceptance by a percentage of the central axis dose only, that all points in that high gradient region will fail. Because of the high gradient, moving only a few mm results in changes in dose that are larger than your acceptance criterion. But we need to recognize issues such as error in detector positioning, and tolerances in field position.

So, the gamma concept basically says that if there is a point within your dose tolerance that is within a specified DTA (rather than right at the reference point) the metric will return an acceptable value.

In a low dose gradient region, differences between reference and comparison data sets will fail if the differences are greater than the allowable dose difference because the nature of the low dose gradient means you generally won't find an agreeable point within the DTA.

 

[Clinac]

Thanks for that choppy, that's makes more sense than explained by low et al.
I wonder form a practical perspective to which i applying the gamma index why the following occurs: I am evaluating two dose matrices calculated and measured obviously using a 2 d array. When using a global reference the gamma index for the matrices is in agreement for 95% -100% for 3mm/3% criteria- happy with that.
However when applying local dose reference the comparison fails due to DTA. I am also suppressing dose below 5% due to use of the local reference. I am unsure why I am not getting similar results to that in the global reference. I would have thought it would be due to dose difference because it is a a stricter criteria in local dose. Much of the failure is cold spots on the periphery or outside the PTV. This surely is not a bad thing.

Could be be to the degeneration of the gamma index to DTA due to the low dose gradient? or the resolution of the device (10 mm). but why is this not happening in gobal gamma reference.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Thanks for all your insights.

 

[Choppy]

We're getting a little off the topic of the thread here. I'll PM you.

 

[qball2]

This post is to everyone who claimed there is a shortage of jobs in medical physics. It's to everyone who claimed that it should be very easy to get a job in medical physics after graduation.

There was a memo from the American Board of Radiology dated July 29, 2010. It reads:

"ABR RP Trustee Statement
a.) Waiver for Part 1 Employment Requirement
b.) Reminder of Application Submission Deadline
Date: July 29, 2010

The ABR has become aware that because of current economic circumstances many recent graduates are experiencing difficulty finding employment in medical physics. Because of this situation, the ABR is waiving the requirement for employment in medical physics as a condition for taking Part 1 effective immediately. All other Part 1 requirements remain in effect.

The requirement for clinical experience prior to taking Part 2 remains unchanged.

Please note also that the deadline for submitting complete applications for the 2011 written examinations in Radiologic Physics is September 30, 2010. With the exception of the Special Circumstances category [http://theabr.org/ic/ic_rp/ic_rp_process.html] , applications received after that date will be returned to the candidate unopened with the next opportunity for submission being in July 2011 under the requirements in place for the 2012 examinations. " [emphasis mine]

You are all wrong.

You can ban me all you want, but you cannot silence the truth.

Game. Set. Match. And QED.

 

[rakhaa]

Worrying, especially for someone about to start grad school in this field!

How do things look for the coming five year period, or ten year period? What are the reasons for this lack of demand? Is it temporary or a systematic oversupply of medical physicists?

And finally, how does all of this fit in with the new CAMPEP rules applicable from 2012 and 2014?

 

[Choppy]

I'm not sure who was arguing that it's easy for recent gradutes to get a job in medical physics right now.

To answer Rakhaa's questions, I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that the economy is rather slow right now and healthcare is not immune from that. But the population is aging, which means over the next decade, there is going to be a significant increase (to the tune of 40%) in the number of people needing radiation therapy. Estimates of the number of qualified medical physicists needed to meet the anticipated demand for 2020 range from as high as 400/yr¹ to about 150/yr.²

Of course the concern is that the requirement that these new physicists come through CAMPEP programs will create a bottle neck in which this demand will not be met. Further, for graduating students, the existing residencies will be extremely competative.

1. TG-133 Report at: http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_133.pdf
2. Mills et al., "Future trends in the supply and demand for radiation oncology physicists," JACMP 11 (2) 209-219 (2010).

 

[MSstrawberry]

Hi, I'm a newbie here, but am I glad I found you :-)
I wonder what would you advise to a Canadian medical physicist entering the job market next summer? CAMPEP accredited MS, ditto accredited residency... And we are thinking about moving south of the border.
Thanks for every bit of information.

 

[Choppy]

Hi, I'm a newbie here, but am I glad I found you :-)
I wonder what would you advise to a Canadian medical physicist entering the job market next summer? CAMPEP accredited MS, ditto accredited residency... And we are thinking about moving south of the border.
Thanks for every bit of information.

Do you have any specific questions?

The single biggest factor to have in your favour is membership with the CCPM, or if you specifically are interested in the US, certification with the ABR.

My understanding is that the US job market for medical physicists is tough right now. Canada is somewhat more stable - following general economy trends. Also, from what I've observed it's more difficult for MSc-level graduates to land positions compared to PhD conterparts in Canada, and that's generally speaking because there is a stronger emphasis on research in Canadian institutions. That's not to say that there aren't opportunities though. There are several new institutions being built in the western provinces over the next few years.

 

[MSstrawberry]

Thank you, Choppy. I'm familiar with the Canadian job market, so I'm trying to learn more about the situation in the US. There appear to be more job ads on the major sites (like AAPM) lately, but it's rare that one ad lasts longer than two months (we might say one month is rather typical)
There were financial and personal reasons why I couldn't afford a PhD at the time, however I still managed to land a residency. True, I'm not a research guy either. I enjoy clinical work and problem solving on a daily basis.
I hope to pass the Canadian Board exam next year, but as you mentioned lack of a PhD makes it harder to find a career job here.
Anyways, if anyone here is familiar with the situation south of the border, I would love to read your opinions. Does the bottleneck still exist? What lies ahead for a Canadian with board exam and a very strong resume, lack of PhD, and so on...

 

[Choppy]

I've noticed more job postings on the medical physics list-server lately too. New ones seem to come out every week or so. I don't know that this necessarily signals the end of the drought though. Numerous posters on this site and others have expressed frustration with the job situation in the US.

Another avenue might be to contact some of the medical physics head hunters.

The best places for networking, I've found, have been conferences. The ASTRO meeting is coming up at the end of October.

 

[rakhaa]

I'm looking for a used version of "The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging" from Bushburg (2nd edition-2002).

Anyone willing to sell this book? Or if you can recommend a place I could find it, would be great!

Thanks,
R.

 

[GuillaumeA]

Hi everyone !

I need some help about high energy electron beams...

The SURFACE percent depth dose increases while energy beam increases. I did not find any courses or papers establishing the reasons of this well-know phenomenon (I mean known by people working in radiation therapy). I suppose it is due to contamination electrons from the linac head but I am not sure at all. If anyone knows, please let me know and if you can give me your reference/paper it would be awsome.

I am desperate :-) because I have been searching for two weeks...

Thanks in advance

GuillaumeA

 

[qball2]

Hi everyone !

I need some help about high energy electron beams...

The SURFACE percent depth dose increases while energy beam increases. I did not find any courses or papers establishing the reasons of this well-know phenomenon (I mean known by people working in radiation therapy). I suppose it is due to contamination electrons from the linac head but I am not sure at all. If anyone knows, please let me know and if you can give me your reference/paper it would be awsome.

I am desperate :-) because I have been searching for two weeks...

Thanks in advance

GuillaumeA

It does increase with increasing energy and the reason is due to the increased energy of the scattered contamination electrons.

I cannot direct you to the source of this information because I do not know it. Most medical physicists I know of memorize it and then take it as gospel. This is one of the major problems with medical physics education.

 

[Doubell]

I enjoy mechanics and things of this nature. It is really easy to forget the other branches of physics like the medical field. ATB for starting a thread on it. Medical physics has lead to great devices like the MRI. IMO it is among the most interesting devices in physics only topped by tesla coils and particle accelerators. Anyway, besides the hair raising name like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, it has really aided in the diagnosis of ailments which is never a bad thing.

so how long would one have to study at the university level for a profession in medical physics

 

[Choppy]

Hi everyone !

I need some help about high energy electron beams...

The SURFACE percent depth dose increases while energy beam increases. I did not find any courses or papers establishing the reasons of this well-know phenomenon (I mean known by people working in radiation therapy). I suppose it is due to contamination electrons from the linac head but I am not sure at all. If anyone knows, please let me know and if you can give me your reference/paper it would be awsome.

I am desperate :-) because I have been searching for two weeks...

Thanks in advance

GuillaumeA

It sounds like you're asking about clinical electron beams, in which case I'm not sure you would really define something as a "contaminant" electron.

The shape of the electron PDD is determined by the scattering properties of the electrons themselves - the differential cross-sections of which are dependent on energy. You should be able to look these up in any standard medical physics textbook like Johns and Cunningham and that will have references to their original derivations. Solving the system for a PDD is a rather complex task to perform analytically. Your best bets for solving them for a specific geometry are the Monte Carlo method or grid-based numerical techniques.

 

[Choppy]

so how long would one have to study at the university level for a profession in medical physics

There are a number of threads about this.

Minimum: 4 year BSc + 2 year MSc = 6 years
This is not typical however. Most positions will expect board certification which will require a 2 year residency and it's difficult to get into a residency without a PhD. To go from high school to a practicing, certified medical physicist you're typically looking at 8-12 years.

 

[qball2]

It sounds like you're asking about clinical electron beams, in which case I'm not sure you would really define something as a "contaminant" electron.

The shape of the electron PDD is determined by the scattering properties of the electrons themselves - the differential cross-sections of which are dependent on energy. You should be able to look these up in any standard medical physics textbook like Johns and Cunningham and that will have references to their original derivations. Solving the system for a PDD is a rather complex task to perform analytically. Your best bets for solving them for a specific geometry are the Monte Carlo method or grid-based numerical techniques.

The contaminants are the scattered electrons since they enter at oblique incidences and contribute to the surface dose.

 

[GuillaumeA]

Thank you for all your answers. I found something very interesting. Look at the fourth page of this pdf. The increase of Ds/Dm with the energy in electron beams is well explained.

GuillaumeA

 

[GuillaumeA]

jpg not pdf :-)

 

[AtomicPile]

This post is to everyone who claimed there is a shortage of jobs in medical physics. It's to everyone who claimed that it should be very easy to get a job in medical physics after graduation.

There was a memo from the American Board of Radiology dated July 29, 2010. It reads:

"ABR RP Trustee Statement
a.) Waiver for Part 1 Employment Requirement
b.) Reminder of Application Submission Deadline
Date: July 29, 2010

The ABR has become aware that because of current economic circumstances many recent graduates are experiencing difficulty finding employment in medical physics. Because of this situation, the ABR is waiving the requirement for employment in medical physics as a condition for taking Part 1 effective immediately. All other Part 1 requirements remain in effect.

The requirement for clinical experience prior to taking Part 2 remains unchanged.

Please note also that the deadline for submitting complete applications for the 2011 written examinations in Radiologic Physics is September 30, 2010. With the exception of the Special Circumstances category [http://theabr.org/ic/ic_rp/ic_rp_process.html] , applications received after that date will be returned to the candidate unopened with the next opportunity for submission being in July 2011 under the requirements in place for the 2012 examinations. " [emphasis mine]

You are all wrong.

You can ban me all you want, but you cannot silence the truth.

Game. Set. Match. And QED.

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

 

[Choppy]

Sorry - you've resurrected this topic to argue that the economy isn't slow right now?

I think I'm missing your point. If you've got some hard data please post.

 

[AtomicPile]

There is an oversupply of medical physicists! The ABR has publicly acknowledged that there are more medical physicists than jobs.

The economy IS slow. However pundits who wish to grow more training programs falsely argue a need for growth based on the fact that the baby boomer population is aging.

Suppose for the moment that the aging baby boomer population argument is sound. Disease progression isn't subject to the vagaries of a poor economy. So the need to hire more people to treat this growing pool of disease would be immune to economic circumstances. But that has not been the reality of the job market for quite a number of years.

I argue that there has always been an oversupply of medical physicists. And anyone who claimed there is was a shortage of medical physicists consciously engaged in an act fraud.