Connect
← Return to video from PCRI suggests long-term beam radiation BCR rates are 50%
Discussion
video from PCRI suggests long-term beam radiation BCR rates are 50%
Prostate Cancer | Last Active: 1 day ago | Replies (49)Comment receiving replies
I read some studies about salvage RT using proton - yes results are the same there too except that side effects are milder and less common with proton and that is IMHO a big plus. Life is not only about survival - quality of life is extremely important .
Regarding 50% recurrence, our RO told us about that also since we were upset about upgrade of 4+3 to 4+5. He said that 4+3 has 50% recurrence in 5 years too so treatments would be the same on the long run. I do not know if that is comforting fact for us but it is what it is ...*sigh
Replies to "@brianjarvis I read some studies about salvage RT using proton - yes results are the same..."
@surftohealth88 Was your RO talking about salvage or if you had done radiation instead of RARP? The recurrence risk after radiation as primary treatment comes from teo distinct sources: i) Viable cancer cells left inside the prostate, ii) cancer cells already outside the prostate. After RARP point i) is moot and from what I have read, salvage radiation has a very high cure rate if cancer is still localized to the prostate bed.
Connect
@surftohealth88 Proton has a unique characteristic called the Bragg-Peak that photon doesn’t have.
These should lead to better outcomes, but the calculation is difficult - and some centers even get it wrong.
Photon is like shining a flashlight against a target on a wall, yes you’ll hit the target head-on, but the scatter will hit a lot of other stuff, too. Proton is like shining a laser light against a target on a wall, less entry dose, less scatter, and less exit dose — should be less side-effects, but the calculation has to be done right or you get no difference than photon.
And then, there’s the spread-out Bragg-Peak (SOBP); that’s another level of difficulty.
(The NCCN guidelines call for different treatment regimens for 4+5 [very high risk] than for 4+3 [intermediate unfavorable risk].)