PROTON THERAPY VERSUS SURGERY

I guess it is to be expected that those who have had successful treatment using ANY method are bound to promote THAT METHOD of treatment. People need to be aware that glowing testimonials are not the best method to base a treatment choice on.. The people who have had negative outcomes are, in many cases, unable to pass on their stories.

The obvious limitations of Proton Beam Therapy (cost and the need to relocate to a distant treatment center and to endure 40 or more daily treatments) are seldom if ever mentioned..

Comparing Proton to surgery is a little off target. How about comparing proton to the latest IMRT / IGRT that is performed on the newest Varian Trilogy RapidArc machines? This equipment is being installed in many big city hospitals and cancer treatment centers making it more accessible and more affordable than the highly touted Proton treatment...

Glowing testimonials are great but we need accurate comparisons of the CURE RATE offered by the different forms of treatment..Curing a PSA 5, Gleason 6 cancer is one thing, curing a PSA 30, Gleason 9 cancer is something else again...

My research on proton vs photon with IMRT/IGRT was the same as JohnT states. The machine used in my treatment was the Varian but not the Rapidarc. Rapidarc is a recent development that speeds up the process but I do not believe makes it any more accurate. I have had very little in the way of side effects due to the radiation. The HT is another matter entirely.

Also my original research showed for "localized" PCa that radiation and surgery gave similar results with a slight edge to surgery at 10 years out. If you are considering radiation there are a couple of other photon machines as well. One is the Cyberknife. Somewhat new to PCa but advantage is shorter treatment duration. Five vs 45.

Look at all the options no matter how confusing before making the final choice.

Good luck to you.

Don