Re: Re: Protons, Prostate, and the New York Times

[Guest guest]

Another article on proton beam radiation was published in the September

14, 2005 issue of JAMA by investigators at the proton radiation facility at Massachusetts General Hospital. The article reports results

from a randomized clinical trial of two doses of proton radiation used on

prostate cancer patients: the standard dose and a higher dose (Zietman et al.,

2005). The outcome of the trial was PSA levels an average five years after

radiation. The proportions of men who sustained zero-levels of PSA over the

follow-up period were 61.4% for conventional dose and 80.4% for the high dose.

In addition, side effects (urinary or rectal morbidity) were very low and did

not differ for the two groups. This is a methodologically sound study, but it

doesn’t compare proton radiation to traditional x-ray radiation.

http://www.innovate.org/OPage.asp?PageID=OTH000140

Looks like he is at the proton facility.

Kathy

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of aborden65

Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007

10:41 AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Re: Protons, Prostate, and the New York Times

Does anyone know if rad onc Dr. Zeitman at MGH/Harvard

works with

tradiational radiation or with Proton Beam toys?

If the US

can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a war

for oil in the middle east, then it can spend a few billion for

proton beams. I had PBRT and my goodies didn't get fried. Most PBRT

nay-sayers point only to marginal improvement in outcomes to justify

their position that it costs too much. QOL after treatment is as

valuable or more valuable than outcome. If it wasn't, then a simple

surgical castration and cremation would be the " cheapest " way to go.

I wonder which treatment Dr. Zeitman will choose if he is dx'd with

prostate cancer . . .

>

> An article today in the New York Times spoke about proton therapy

for

> cancer--including, of course, prostate cancer.

>

> Not the most positive article--it talks about the expense of the

> facilities, and compares the overall effectiveness (accuracy,

relative

> lack of side effects, etc.) to IMRT.

>

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/health/25cnd-proton.html?

>

_r=1 & ei=5089 & en=df70e491e0fa0d00 & ex=1356325200 & adxnnl=1 & oref=slogin & pa

r

> tner=rssyahoo & emc=rss & adxnnlx=1198630859-dY9+G9j+C7n4U69AsArZrg

>

> (You'll probably need a free subscription)

>

>

> --Steve

>

[Guest guest]

Blair;

The only stale thing here is prostate cancer!

Re: Protons, Prostate, and the New York Times

This is exactly what I would expect Fuller to post. This argument is getting stale.Blair