In this article, upper-level interventional radiology (IR) trainee, Monica Matsumoto (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA) discusses the data that she and her collaborators collected on the quality and content of their training, distilling what is and isn’t important to her peers.
The current IR training pathway with both integrated and independent residencies has been in place since 2017, with the most recent Match in March 2025 being the largest to-date.1 While several studies have focused on viewpoints regarding IR among medical students and incoming residents, insights from upper-level
IR trainees are lacking and could provide valuable information, not only for junior residents and future IR trainees, but also for IR educators and residency leadership.2,3
We surveyed senior IR residents (PGY 5–7, n=48) in the USA, including integrated and independent pathways. Here are our top five takeaways:
1. Overall, residents are satisfied with their training
We found that upper-level residents were overwhelmingly happy, regardless of their IR training route. While there was a slight, non-statistically significant preference of the integrated over the independent pathway, we could not make more definitive conclusions on the optimal pathway due to the limited number of responses.
2. Interpersonal-and procedural-related programme components
Trainee happiness, faculty friendliness, ‘fit’ with programme culture, procedure diversity and quantity, as well as development of procedural autonomy were selected as the most important components when selecting a programme.
3. A diagnostic foundation is key, with opportunities to develop ancillary IR training components
IR residents should be proficient in core diagnostic radiology components, with particular attention given to mastering body imaging, emergency radiology and ultrasound. Beyond the core components, programmes should offer varied elective opportunities based on resident preferences, such as a diagnostic procedural rotation and vascular surgery. Future areas for training innovation include ancillary opportunities, such as in practice development, business/financial literacy training and subspecialty (mini-)fellowships.
4. Intern year should be chosen based on personal priorities
Residents favoured intern year flexibility, with essentially a tie between preliminary surgery, categorical IR and no preference at all. However, residents noted that preliminary surgery and categorical intern years have more patient care emphasis than a transitional year.
5. There is no “one-size-fits all” training model
We found that residents’ reflections about programme components were predominantly heterogeneous. While this makes blanket conclusions more difficult, we believe the diversity is a strength of the current training model that accommodates and promotes different backgrounds and interests.
References
- Kaufman JA, Mauro MA. The Path to Primary Specialty Recognition of Interventional Radiology and the IR/DR Certificate. JVIR. 2023;34(12):2052– 2057.
- Matsumoto MM, Shamimi-Noori S, Gade TP, et al., A 5-Year Update on the IR Residency Match: 2022 National Survey Results of Program Directors and Matched Applicants Compared with 2017. JVIR. 2023;34(9):1584–1598.e1549.
- Oladini LK, Rezaee M, Thukral S, et al. Opportunities for Excellence in Interventional Radiology Training: A Qualitative Study. JACR. 2022;19(4):576-585.
Monica Matsumoto is an upper-level interventional radiology trainee at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, USA.
