How many times is having radiation done safe in a lifetime?

Here's a question that's been bothering me, and my former rad. oncologist, nor the two I met with recently can or will answer, my uro/surgeon didn't know, but then it's not his field.

How many times in a person's lifetime can they safely undergo full blown radiation treatments?

When I had it done in 2000, for neck and throat, it was 36 treatments.  I don't remember the grys, wouldn't have known to ask in  those days. I do remember the rad. oncl. telling me that each time I was zapped, it was equal to 40 chest x-rays.  It that is true, that means that was equal to 1,440 chest x-rays.

Plus all the other radiation based tests I have had in my life.

I am wondering is the cure this time with salvage radiation going to multiply my woes in the end?  Am I already overloaded with radiation from the prior?  When is too much, too much?

It's more than I can think about, and my own research doesn't come up with much, and these doctor's don't want to answer for some reason.  There has to be an answer.

Concerned in SC, David

P.S.  I thought radiation caused cancer in the first place?

Hi David,

The answer to your question is "it depends". Dose, body part, interval between doses, environmental exposure and so on. I am attaching an article that I read before starting my IMRT as primary treatment. It is lengthy and somewhat technical but it will give you some understanding of the effects.

David, I surely hope that things turn around for you. I read your posts frequently although I do not post comments often.

Best wishes,

Don

http://https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%2040

PS. I am not sure I got the whole address in but try a Google search with this much and it should take you to the PDF.

There is a dose maximum but I cannot recall what that is.

Let me put it one way; Paul had radiation for TCa in 1995. It was amde clear then that his lifetime dose was close enough to be counting every exposure from this point on.

Our duaghter is also in the same boat yet she's not have radiation treatment, only a whole lot of e-rays and scans. They've been counting her exposure for years already.

It seems to me that we are talking about three different levels of radiation exposure here.

Occupational exposure – here the goal is not raise the risk level above that of the rest of the population.

Medical Test Exposure – here the general standard is the same as occupational exposure, that is, to do no harm. Currently there is a movement to pay more attention to the cumulative lifetime levels.

Medical Treatment Exposure -- at this point the rules change because the balance is between the danger from the condition being treated and the danger from radiation. I think that for the vast majority of patients the disease risk so far outweighs the radiation risk that it is and easy call. Yes, radiation risk is raised but the patient’s life is extended.

Since it's an entirely different part of your body - I'd guess its a lot safer then not having it. As you mentioned - ask your new Doc when you meet her.

7. Should patients with cancer be concerned about the radiotherapy they undergo?

Radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy are the major ways in which cancer is treated; they are used singly or in combinations depending on the cancer. The effectiveness of radiation in killing cancer cells--and, at the same time, the potential for harm to normal tissues--depends on several things, including the type of radiation used, the extent of the body that is treated, and the patient's age or other medical problems. Doctors try to avoid exposure of large parts of the body to radiation because this can cause serious side effects like a secondary cancer--one that develops after treatment for the initial cancer. However, only about 5% of all secondary cancers have been linked to radiotherapy. The risk of leukemia after large doses of radiation to localized areas of the body often is surprisingly low, because the local effect is to kill cells that might, at smaller doses, undergo transformation--the changes that a normal cell undergoes as it becomes malignant--eventually leading to leukemia. Other side effects of radiotherapy range from mild to serious; many are temporary.

With the development of better therapy machines and the use of computers to plan the treatment, the safety and efficacy of radiotherapy have steadily improved. Radiologists make every attempt to minimize harmful effects to normal tissues. Thus, a patient's risks from exposure to radiation are far offset by the benefits from the treatment.
http://www.nih.gov/health/chip/od/radiation/#xseven

I'd imagine that anyone that gets close to the X number won't care since they're already so close to death. Cause isn't the alternative to not doing radiation - to do nothing?

Thanks Steve and Joey for some good info there, will ponder that.

Les, my concern it total lifetime exposure, not so much a particular session of radiation treatment.

David in SC

Les, no, I guess I am not clever enough to get it. There are half-lives even in a simple CT scan I have been told, and when you look at people getting 60-80 grys of radiation, even though it is spread out over weeks/months, still a lot of radiation being abosorbed.

With the 4 grys being a line in the sand for radiation sickness, you can see where some sensitive people can get sick earlier into radiation treatments.

When I was being evaluated and setup for radiaton in 2000, for the cancer that was in my throat/neck, the radiation doctor asked me a couple of questions that I thought were odd at the time. He said, are you real sensitive to the sun? I said yes, I use to get what the oldtimers would call "sun sickness" growing up. He said do you burn easy in the sun? I said way too easy, I rarely allow myself to directly exposed to the sun unprotected, all my life. He then said, that I would have a hard time with the radiation.

I was already getting burned by the end of the 4th week. By the 2nd week, my ears shriveled up and were lobster red, and hurt to the touch. I believe I had a total of 36 treatments, and during that time I lost over 30 pounds. Didn't want to eat, everything tasted metalic and nasty.

So yeah, perhaps thats some insight in why I am so touch about the prospect of salvage surgery. I am hoping and praying that methods have improved in the past 9 years, and have learned since, only recently, that throat/head radiation is particually brutal ,so perhaps it was normal.

about a month after treatments ended, I had what my dr. said at the time was a classic post-radiation crash. So overwhelmed by fatique that I could hardly function. At that time, I was wearing my IT hat, and was the Systems Manager for a 6 state computer operation.

They put me in physical therapy for 6 months, then renewed it for another six months. It took about 8 months for all my tastes buds to return to normal, and to this day, 9 years later, I have perpetual thirst, I don't drink much at a time, mostly only water, but I have to sip all the time. Spicy food or even orange juice is like me chugging down battery acid. The drs. at the time said that was just some of the perm damage that it would do.

Yes, I am really hesitant to get into radiation again, and yes, I know the alternative, I will say the DYING word, would be worse, but might shed some light on me not being gung ho about it.

David in SC