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
@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].)
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
@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.
@brianjarvis So very true…AI as it stands now is just a superfast comb thru of anything ever posted matching your search words. So you are going to get an ETF like response - the good, the bad and the worst -?all lumped into a few concise statements which you already knew by heart.
I guess that’s where the ‘artificial’ part comes in…
Phil
@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].)
@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.
@topf
He was talking in general terms since RP and RT have similar recurrence rates. I mean, I knew that , that is why we chose RP so we have "ace in a sleeve" - RT for salvage if needed and our choice proved to be good ( thanks all angels in heaven) because my husband might need salvage/ adjuvant soon. It all depends of the first PSA and of his choice of a treatment. Also, I always wonder how accurate are those studies about RT since obviously correct gleason grade is missed during biopsy in pretty good %.
BUT - alllll of those statistics are just that - statistics . How will each individual PC behave and what will be a result is really Russian Roulette - it depends of soooo many factors that it is not even funny. One can do everything by a book (statistics) and have bad result, while the other who had very little chance to begin with at the end lives a decade and more. They are just guidelines, something to consider and take into account. All the rest is "to be seen" .
I say this half jokingly - it seems that it is all written in ones natal chart ...
@jc76 There are two clinical trials looking into this; COMPPARE and PARTIQoL.
—> The PARTIQoL trial interim results are showing that both therapies achieved similar tumor control rates and patient-reported quality of life outcomes. Specifically, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival or patient-reported outcomes like urinary, bowel, and sexual function
—> The COMPPARE trial is another large-scale study also comparing proton therapy and IMRT, but with a different focus on patient-reported outcomes. The COMPPARE trial is still ongoing.
The COMPPARE and PartiQoL trials seem to be showing no different QoL or success rate outcomes between proton and photon radiation. If so, does this spell the end of proton radiation for prostate cancer, as instance companies will lean towards the much less expensive photon?
@brianjarvis
As you know there are many types of cancer than prostate. Almost every medical institution that I am familiar with these days will refer those with cancer that are children, have eye cancer, brain cancer, etc. to proton facilities. This include Mayo Jacksonville which does not have proton radiation just photon. Mayo Jacksonville is building a new cancer center which will have proton radiation.
I don't think Mayo and all the research they do would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new cancer center with proton radiation if proton was not beneficial addition to treating cancer.
Not one of my medical providers told me anything different than this. There is no difference in success rate of radiation treatments from proton and photon. They both have the same success rates. The main difference is photon comes in, hits target, can continues out through body. Proton enters a low dose, releases it's full dose strength at progammed target, and stops.
The below was copied directly from American Cancer Society.
Particle beam radiation therapy. A common type of particle beam radiation therapy is proton therapy. Proton therapy focuses beams of protons on the cancer.
The beams used in proton therapy only travel a certain distance. The radiation beam stops at the tumor and doesn’t go beyond it, so the tissues behind the tumor are exposed to very little radiation.
This is different than the photons (x-rays) used in photon beam radiation therapy, which go through the body and expose tissues to radiation both before and after they hit the tumor.
This echoes what was told to me by my Mayo urologist, Mayo R/O, Mayo PCP, and UFHPTI R/O.
Proton has only been around since about 2006 and very few long ranges studies done comparing both. Many short term studies have been done. What my UFHPTI told me his research (UFHPTI is the institution that got 25 million dollar grant to do a long term study of proton and radiation treatments) was showing the same conclusions that proton and photon success rates are identical.
Where the differ is the side affects and damage to other organs and tissues. The reason (again my UFHPTI R/O when I commented on so many children here) proton is used so much on children is they life span is so much longer than and adult and thus secondary cancers caused by radiation can occur during their life span.
My UFHPTI also told me (he has been doing proton for 20 years) he does not like the high dose radiation as he is seeing sooner and additional side affects. My Mayo PCP who says he stays atop of recent studies stated the information is showing increased issues with side affects of the high dose limited number of days treatments.
My Mayo PCP was the one who stated why years ago he wanted me to continue getting PSA test even though past reocmmendation were for it to be optional. He said Mayo was seeing an increase in stage 4 prostate cancer. They did a study to see what may be causing such an increase and saw that when they changed making PSA optional they could see the shart increase of patient coming is with stage 4. Thus they changed their protocol. This is the real time information and studies I was referring to.
The radiation treatments have greatly changed and improved. Even in the 2.5 years on MCC I have seen new treatments.
I get monthly newsletters from Mayo. They are citing studies now showing great promise for using a type of protein type chemical which only attach to specific prostate cancer cells and keeps them from multiplying and growing, and eventually dying. That will be great news if pans out in clinical trial as it will drastically change prostate cancer treatments.
I won't probably be around when that is offered but hopefully those of us in the future that will get prostate cancer wil not even have to deal with radiation damage.
@brianjarvis
As you know there are many types of cancer than prostate. Almost every medical institution that I am familiar with these days will refer those with cancer that are children, have eye cancer, brain cancer, etc. to proton facilities. This include Mayo Jacksonville which does not have proton radiation just photon. Mayo Jacksonville is building a new cancer center which will have proton radiation.
I don't think Mayo and all the research they do would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new cancer center with proton radiation if proton was not beneficial addition to treating cancer.
Not one of my medical providers told me anything different than this. There is no difference in success rate of radiation treatments from proton and photon. They both have the same success rates. The main difference is photon comes in, hits target, can continues out through body. Proton enters a low dose, releases it's full dose strength at progammed target, and stops.
The below was copied directly from American Cancer Society.
Particle beam radiation therapy. A common type of particle beam radiation therapy is proton therapy. Proton therapy focuses beams of protons on the cancer.
The beams used in proton therapy only travel a certain distance. The radiation beam stops at the tumor and doesn’t go beyond it, so the tissues behind the tumor are exposed to very little radiation.
This is different than the photons (x-rays) used in photon beam radiation therapy, which go through the body and expose tissues to radiation both before and after they hit the tumor.
This echoes what was told to me by my Mayo urologist, Mayo R/O, Mayo PCP, and UFHPTI R/O.
Proton has only been around since about 2006 and very few long ranges studies done comparing both. Many short term studies have been done. What my UFHPTI told me his research (UFHPTI is the institution that got 25 million dollar grant to do a long term study of proton and radiation treatments) was showing the same conclusions that proton and photon success rates are identical.
Where the differ is the side affects and damage to other organs and tissues. The reason (again my UFHPTI R/O when I commented on so many children here) proton is used so much on children is they life span is so much longer than and adult and thus secondary cancers caused by radiation can occur during their life span.
My UFHPTI also told me (he has been doing proton for 20 years) he does not like the high dose radiation as he is seeing sooner and additional side affects. My Mayo PCP who says he stays atop of recent studies stated the information is showing increased issues with side affects of the high dose limited number of days treatments.
My Mayo PCP was the one who stated why years ago he wanted me to continue getting PSA test even though past reocmmendation were for it to be optional. He said Mayo was seeing an increase in stage 4 prostate cancer. They did a study to see what may be causing such an increase and saw that when they changed making PSA optional they could see the shart increase of patient coming is with stage 4. Thus they changed their protocol. This is the real time information and studies I was referring to.
The radiation treatments have greatly changed and improved. Even in the 2.5 years on MCC I have seen new treatments.
I get monthly newsletters from Mayo. They are citing studies now showing great promise for using a type of protein type chemical which only attach to specific prostate cancer cells and keeps them from multiplying and growing, and eventually dying. That will be great news if pans out in clinical trial as it will drastically change prostate cancer treatments.
I won't probably be around when that is offered but hopefully those of us in the future that will get prostate cancer wil not even have to deal with radiation damage.
@jc76 There are currently 46 operating proton centers in the U.S.: https://www.proton-therapy.org/map/ There are many hundreds (a thousand? I don’t know…) of photon centers nationwide.
Yes, children are regularly referred to proton centers for any number of cancers and insurance companies cover those treatments without question. But, we’re not talking about children and their cancers, we’re talking about men and specifically about prostate cancer,
When it comes to prostate cancer, insurance companies regularly reject proton radiation treatments for prostate cancer because of cost and due to results of studies similar to those like that I cited earlier.
The issue is with proton - prostate cancer - and insurance decisions. And many insurance companies use the outcome of clinical trials to make those decisions.
Now, some hospitals go ahead and build proton centers and have agreed to get reimbursed by insurance companies for proton for prostate cancer at the same lower rate of reimbursement as for photon for prostate cancer; that is their call as they determine their bottom-lines (since they still make profit from their other cancer-proton treatments),
I’m very familiar with proton’s Bragg-Peak characteristics. That doesn’t explain the frequency of insurance companies’ denials of proton radiation did prostate cancer,
Proton radiation to treat cancers has been around well before 2006. Proton radiotherapy has been used for treating prostate cancer for many decades. When I was reviewing medical journals for proton-prostate literature (back in 2019/2020 when I was deciding on treatment), the earliest paper I found was from 1979 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/107338/) - over 45 years ago!
The most recent studies (about proton and prostate cancer) that arc being done - COMPPARE and PARTIQoL -
Children will continue to receive proton radiation treatments for their cancers. But, for some reason proton radiation treatments for prostate cancer will remain controversial, with continued denials, continued lawsuits, treatment centers agreeing to lower reimbursement rates, while at other facilities men (like myself) will have no trouble getting proton radiation treatments,
@jc76 There are currently 46 operating proton centers in the U.S.: https://www.proton-therapy.org/map/ There are many hundreds (a thousand? I don’t know…) of photon centers nationwide.
Yes, children are regularly referred to proton centers for any number of cancers and insurance companies cover those treatments without question. But, we’re not talking about children and their cancers, we’re talking about men and specifically about prostate cancer,
When it comes to prostate cancer, insurance companies regularly reject proton radiation treatments for prostate cancer because of cost and due to results of studies similar to those like that I cited earlier.
The issue is with proton - prostate cancer - and insurance decisions. And many insurance companies use the outcome of clinical trials to make those decisions.
Now, some hospitals go ahead and build proton centers and have agreed to get reimbursed by insurance companies for proton for prostate cancer at the same lower rate of reimbursement as for photon for prostate cancer; that is their call as they determine their bottom-lines (since they still make profit from their other cancer-proton treatments),
I’m very familiar with proton’s Bragg-Peak characteristics. That doesn’t explain the frequency of insurance companies’ denials of proton radiation did prostate cancer,
Proton radiation to treat cancers has been around well before 2006. Proton radiotherapy has been used for treating prostate cancer for many decades. When I was reviewing medical journals for proton-prostate literature (back in 2019/2020 when I was deciding on treatment), the earliest paper I found was from 1979 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/107338/) - over 45 years ago!
The most recent studies (about proton and prostate cancer) that arc being done - COMPPARE and PARTIQoL -
Children will continue to receive proton radiation treatments for their cancers. But, for some reason proton radiation treatments for prostate cancer will remain controversial, with continued denials, continued lawsuits, treatment centers agreeing to lower reimbursement rates, while at other facilities men (like myself) will have no trouble getting proton radiation treatments,
@brianjarvis
My medicare and BCBS FEP paid for proton radiation. Many of us on MCC are at the medicare age (but sadly many are much younger) and have medicare and it does cover proton. UFHPTI has a financial program to help with those who insurance will not pay.
UFHPTI also have a very aggressive appeal process when needed. They are not for profit medical facility. It is State of Florida facility. All the doctors, staff and techs are salaried state employees. Mayo employees are also salaried and neither make any more money by ordering tests, etc.
At Mayo Jacksonville I donate every year to help with medical advancement there and a special division called Good Samaritan Fund (to help those who do not have insurance or insurance does not cover their treatment). Mayo Jacksonville is building a new cancer facility to open in 2026 which will have proton radiation treatments. If that center had been opened in 2023 I would have gone to Mayo as I have been a patient there since 2006.
My mentioned of children is to show my personal experience of why medical providers are referring children and other patients to get proton verus photon. It, in my opinion had a direct relation to those on MCC discussion of differences of the two radiation treatments and why. I asked my UFHPTI R/O why it seemed so many children were at UFHPTI and he gave me his answer which I shared.
Many posters on MCC PC have also gone to UFHPTI and saw the same. The children have their own treatment rooms along the side of the complex along gantries. In the lobby I sat with many other men. You could always tell the prostate patients as we were all drinking water prior to our appointments. All of us there felt sad for all the children having to go through radiation but glad there was a radiation available to help them where 20 years almost no proton facilities were available.
When I post I try to share my personal experience with a decision, test, side affect. I asked my R/O about why so many children and shared that. I had several consultation at Mayo Jacksonville (only has photon) radiation oncology and my experience there is I never saw a child in the waiting room.
The Amercian Cancer Society list proton radiation treatments benefiting those that are children, brain cancer, eye, throat, and also list prostate. This is exactly what I saw at UFHPTI and echos my experience with proton radiation.
Young men(and there are many on MCC) that have come down with PC will be around for several decades like children. Even at my age it was important to know why children and those with with eye, brain, etc. cancers are referred to proton facilities.
My original post was a reply to a poster asked if I could explain why I chose proton over photon. I replied with my direct experiences and why I chose proton.
In the OP video, there's a comparison of beam radiation vs surgery vs Brachytherapy (starts at the 9-minute mark).
"...Brachytherapy consistently showed higher cure rates."
That was discouraging to watch. My oncologist said the 5 year remission rate from SBRT+ADT was only 10%. There's a HUGE difference between 10 and 50 percent.
Connect
Connect
Like
Helpful
Hug
@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].)
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions@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.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@brianjarvis So very true…AI as it stands now is just a superfast comb thru of anything ever posted matching your search words. So you are going to get an ETF like response - the good, the bad and the worst -?all lumped into a few concise statements which you already knew by heart.
I guess that’s where the ‘artificial’ part comes in…
Phil
@brianjarvis
I sad "on the long run" the same .
@topf
He was talking in general terms since RP and RT have similar recurrence rates. I mean, I knew that , that is why we chose RP so we have "ace in a sleeve" - RT for salvage if needed and our choice proved to be good ( thanks all angels in heaven) because my husband might need salvage/ adjuvant soon. It all depends of the first PSA and of his choice of a treatment. Also, I always wonder how accurate are those studies about RT since obviously correct gleason grade is missed during biopsy in pretty good %.
BUT - alllll of those statistics are just that - statistics . How will each individual PC behave and what will be a result is really Russian Roulette - it depends of soooo many factors that it is not even funny. One can do everything by a book (statistics) and have bad result, while the other who had very little chance to begin with at the end lives a decade and more. They are just guidelines, something to consider and take into account. All the rest is "to be seen" .
I say this half jokingly - it seems that it is all written in ones natal chart ...
@brianjarvis
As you know there are many types of cancer than prostate. Almost every medical institution that I am familiar with these days will refer those with cancer that are children, have eye cancer, brain cancer, etc. to proton facilities. This include Mayo Jacksonville which does not have proton radiation just photon. Mayo Jacksonville is building a new cancer center which will have proton radiation.
I don't think Mayo and all the research they do would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new cancer center with proton radiation if proton was not beneficial addition to treating cancer.
Not one of my medical providers told me anything different than this. There is no difference in success rate of radiation treatments from proton and photon. They both have the same success rates. The main difference is photon comes in, hits target, can continues out through body. Proton enters a low dose, releases it's full dose strength at progammed target, and stops.
The below was copied directly from American Cancer Society.
Particle beam radiation therapy. A common type of particle beam radiation therapy is proton therapy. Proton therapy focuses beams of protons on the cancer.
The beams used in proton therapy only travel a certain distance. The radiation beam stops at the tumor and doesn’t go beyond it, so the tissues behind the tumor are exposed to very little radiation.
This is different than the photons (x-rays) used in photon beam radiation therapy, which go through the body and expose tissues to radiation both before and after they hit the tumor.
This echoes what was told to me by my Mayo urologist, Mayo R/O, Mayo PCP, and UFHPTI R/O.
Proton has only been around since about 2006 and very few long ranges studies done comparing both. Many short term studies have been done. What my UFHPTI told me his research (UFHPTI is the institution that got 25 million dollar grant to do a long term study of proton and radiation treatments) was showing the same conclusions that proton and photon success rates are identical.
Where the differ is the side affects and damage to other organs and tissues. The reason (again my UFHPTI R/O when I commented on so many children here) proton is used so much on children is they life span is so much longer than and adult and thus secondary cancers caused by radiation can occur during their life span.
My UFHPTI also told me (he has been doing proton for 20 years) he does not like the high dose radiation as he is seeing sooner and additional side affects. My Mayo PCP who says he stays atop of recent studies stated the information is showing increased issues with side affects of the high dose limited number of days treatments.
My Mayo PCP was the one who stated why years ago he wanted me to continue getting PSA test even though past reocmmendation were for it to be optional. He said Mayo was seeing an increase in stage 4 prostate cancer. They did a study to see what may be causing such an increase and saw that when they changed making PSA optional they could see the shart increase of patient coming is with stage 4. Thus they changed their protocol. This is the real time information and studies I was referring to.
The radiation treatments have greatly changed and improved. Even in the 2.5 years on MCC I have seen new treatments.
I get monthly newsletters from Mayo. They are citing studies now showing great promise for using a type of protein type chemical which only attach to specific prostate cancer cells and keeps them from multiplying and growing, and eventually dying. That will be great news if pans out in clinical trial as it will drastically change prostate cancer treatments.
I won't probably be around when that is offered but hopefully those of us in the future that will get prostate cancer wil not even have to deal with radiation damage.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions@jc76 There are currently 46 operating proton centers in the U.S.: https://www.proton-therapy.org/map/ There are many hundreds (a thousand? I don’t know…) of photon centers nationwide.
Yes, children are regularly referred to proton centers for any number of cancers and insurance companies cover those treatments without question. But, we’re not talking about children and their cancers, we’re talking about men and specifically about prostate cancer,
When it comes to prostate cancer, insurance companies regularly reject proton radiation treatments for prostate cancer because of cost and due to results of studies similar to those like that I cited earlier.
Denials for proton for prostate cancer are very common:
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10915745/
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8768894/
There have been so many lawsuits over these denials, that it’s hard to keep count:
> https://www.the-sun.com/money/15262090/aetna-health-insurance-settlement-lawsuit-prostate-cancer/
The issue is with proton - prostate cancer - and insurance decisions. And many insurance companies use the outcome of clinical trials to make those decisions.
Now, some hospitals go ahead and build proton centers and have agreed to get reimbursed by insurance companies for proton for prostate cancer at the same lower rate of reimbursement as for photon for prostate cancer; that is their call as they determine their bottom-lines (since they still make profit from their other cancer-proton treatments),
I’m very familiar with proton’s Bragg-Peak characteristics. That doesn’t explain the frequency of insurance companies’ denials of proton radiation did prostate cancer,
Proton radiation to treat cancers has been around well before 2006. Proton radiotherapy has been used for treating prostate cancer for many decades. When I was reviewing medical journals for proton-prostate literature (back in 2019/2020 when I was deciding on treatment), the earliest paper I found was from 1979 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/107338/) - over 45 years ago!
The most recent studies (about proton and prostate cancer) that arc being done - COMPPARE and PARTIQoL -
> PARTIQoL: https://www.astro.org/news-and-publications/news-and-media-center/news-releases/2024/astro24efstathiou
> COMPPARE: (still ongoing)
Children will continue to receive proton radiation treatments for their cancers. But, for some reason proton radiation treatments for prostate cancer will remain controversial, with continued denials, continued lawsuits, treatment centers agreeing to lower reimbursement rates, while at other facilities men (like myself) will have no trouble getting proton radiation treatments,
It’s a fragile landscape.
@brianjarvis
My medicare and BCBS FEP paid for proton radiation. Many of us on MCC are at the medicare age (but sadly many are much younger) and have medicare and it does cover proton. UFHPTI has a financial program to help with those who insurance will not pay.
UFHPTI also have a very aggressive appeal process when needed. They are not for profit medical facility. It is State of Florida facility. All the doctors, staff and techs are salaried state employees. Mayo employees are also salaried and neither make any more money by ordering tests, etc.
At Mayo Jacksonville I donate every year to help with medical advancement there and a special division called Good Samaritan Fund (to help those who do not have insurance or insurance does not cover their treatment). Mayo Jacksonville is building a new cancer facility to open in 2026 which will have proton radiation treatments. If that center had been opened in 2023 I would have gone to Mayo as I have been a patient there since 2006.
My mentioned of children is to show my personal experience of why medical providers are referring children and other patients to get proton verus photon. It, in my opinion had a direct relation to those on MCC discussion of differences of the two radiation treatments and why. I asked my UFHPTI R/O why it seemed so many children were at UFHPTI and he gave me his answer which I shared.
Many posters on MCC PC have also gone to UFHPTI and saw the same. The children have their own treatment rooms along the side of the complex along gantries. In the lobby I sat with many other men. You could always tell the prostate patients as we were all drinking water prior to our appointments. All of us there felt sad for all the children having to go through radiation but glad there was a radiation available to help them where 20 years almost no proton facilities were available.
When I post I try to share my personal experience with a decision, test, side affect. I asked my R/O about why so many children and shared that. I had several consultation at Mayo Jacksonville (only has photon) radiation oncology and my experience there is I never saw a child in the waiting room.
The Amercian Cancer Society list proton radiation treatments benefiting those that are children, brain cancer, eye, throat, and also list prostate. This is exactly what I saw at UFHPTI and echos my experience with proton radiation.
Young men(and there are many on MCC) that have come down with PC will be around for several decades like children. Even at my age it was important to know why children and those with with eye, brain, etc. cancers are referred to proton facilities.
My original post was a reply to a poster asked if I could explain why I chose proton over photon. I replied with my direct experiences and why I chose proton.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsIn the OP video, there's a comparison of beam radiation vs surgery vs Brachytherapy (starts at the 9-minute mark).
"...Brachytherapy consistently showed higher cure rates."
That was discouraging to watch. My oncologist said the 5 year remission rate from SBRT+ADT was only 10%. There's a HUGE difference between 10 and 50 percent.