Background: For new fellows, learning clinical oncology represents an enormous challenge. Few data support specific didactic approaches. The senior author (TPJ) developed a novel curriculum, emphasizing deliberate practice as part of a design grounded in Ericsson’s “expert performance approach”. These noon conferences are case based with a focus on key clinical trials and NCCN guidelines. In comparison to didactics given directly by faculty, these conferences are primarily presented by a senior teaching fellow with an invited faculty member adding additional commentary as an “expert discussant”. We surveyed fellows to assess perception of efficacy and also created a board style test to evaluate knowledge gains. Methods: The curriculum began in 2020. After one year, we surveyed fellows with a five-point likert scale survey to quantify their perception of the curriculum. In 2022, we created a pair of 18-question lung cancer specific board style tests for the five teaching sessions on lung cancer. Prior to the first conference, the pre-test was sent to fellows electronically; after the final lecture the other 18-question test was sent out. Differences in the overall cohort’s test score were examined via a paired student t-test. Results: On the 2021 survey, 59% of fellows responded (17 of 29). Of the respondents, 83% attended at least half of the lectures (14 of 17). When asked to compare this conference series to traditional lecture-based series, 59% (10 of 17) agreed with the statement that "this series is one of the very best I've encountered" and all said it was at least “better than average.” 94% of respondents (16 of 17) said the series equipped them for clinical practice to either a “significant” or “remarkable” degree. 94% of respondents (16 of 17) agreed the conferences helped them learn to “think like oncologists.” For the five session lung cancer block, fellows reported attending an average of 3.6 ± 1.4 sessions (n = 13). On the 18-question pre-test (n = 19), the average score ± one standard deviation was 73% ± 15%. For the post-test (n = 13), the average was 68% ± 17% (p = 0.48). Conclusions: We developed a novel curriculum to replace traditional didactics. Fellows perceived the curriculum to be exceptionally strong as compared to traditional lecture series, felt it prepared them well for practice, and said it taught them to think like oncologists. Pre/post knowledge assessments did not show an improvement in knowledge. Distribution to larger numbers of fellows–especially early learners–may better power a study to detect improvements in learning.