Oral boards change incites pushback
I was appalled at the voting of the radiology chairs and program directors to delay the oral boards for two years ("Proposal for delay in oral boards stirs controversy," July, page 9).
I was appalled at the voting of the radiology chairs and program directors to delay the oral boards for two years ("Proposal for delay in oral boards stirs controversy," July, page 9).
It seems that by far the best time to study and prepare for an academic exam is when one is at an academic institution and in a training program and is expected to study anyway. Two years later, when one is further subspecialized or well away from an academic location, would be a very poor substitute. Should not the final exam reflect the quality of the training program instead?
In the article, the sniping at the residents appeared immature at best. If some of the senior residents are working less and studying more for orals, then who is letting that happen and who is in charge of the training program? Also, that information should be provided in the evaluation file so that potential employers will know that productivity of that individual may be a problem. Furthermore, delaying an exam so that others will face the problems is not a proper solution.
I would ask that all of the parties involved revisit this issue.
Max D. Walker, M.D.
Diagnostic radiologist
Alaska Native Medical Center
Anchorage, AK
Study Shows No Impact of Hormone Therapy on PET/CT with 18F-Piflufolastat in PCa Imaging
May 7th 2025For patients with recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer, new research findings showed no significant difference in the sensitivity of 18F-piflufolastat PET/CT between patients on concurrent hormone therapy and those without hormone therapy.
