To to add a little to what Lyn has said.
The medical facilities in the USA have the most experience of protons for treating cancer and this is not just a recent way of treating cancer as some may suppose. The first humans to be treated with the proton beam was in the mid fifties at the University of California Lawrence Berkeley. The first hospital based treatment was given in the late nineteen eighties at Loma Linda. It think it it is surprising therefore that there does not seem to be more published findings on how protons compare with photons after so many years. Both photon and proton treatment has been refined over the years and the latter is now becoming available in an increasing number of countries. Whilst the case for it's treatment for prostate cancer has not been so well made, the NHS have paid to send some, mainly children to the USA for treatment where protons have demonstrated an advantage, especially for certain tumours in the head, largely due to minimising collateral damage that photons would cause.
Three of the reasons, why proton beam therapy has not been taken up more widely are 1) it is very expensive compared to a linac delivering photons, 2) It requires more space and 3) It needs highly trained operators, physicists and mathematicians. However, advances in design, size and lower cost in train of proton beam machines mean it is likely these will become more widely used for more cancers.
For those that are interested in more detail these Cancer Research UK links may prove helpful.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/09/16/proton-therapy-is-coming-to-the-uk-but-what-does-it-mean-for-patients/
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/07/16/proton-beam-therapy-where-are-we-now
An even more powerful hadron therapy is using carbon ions but at present this requires a synchrotron, a quantum leap in size and cost over the cyclotron presently used for proton beam. Then experiments are being done with anti-proton or anti-matter which it is thought may prove an even more effective cancer killer. Fascinating though all this is, I am sure we would much rather have an injection or pill to eradicate this disease or better still prevent it in the first place.
Edited by member 18 Mar 2017 at 03:12
| Reason: Not specified
Barry |
User
Tony,
I thought I would reply to your comment about the Hollywood approach of the Americans.
Health provision has become Internationally marketed as a service. We in the UK have been largely insulated from it because the vast majority of the UK population look no further than the NHS for treatment and follow up at no medical cost at the point of use. The main exceptions to this is where there is a prolonged wait in the NHS or where a type of treatment is not available here or if only available privately, is less expensive abroad and often requires a potential patient does a lot of research. Many hospitals worldwide, including some in the UK, now advertise what they can offer, largely but not exclusively on the Internet. Americans marketing of healthcare, as with some other commodities and services, sometimes has an aggressive or different, sometimes glitzy style which does not sit very well with many of us. Setting this aside, as with any product or service, one has to consider if it is affordable and provides something that is sufficiently superior to what is available within an acceptable time at home. There is also the matter of follow up and potentially further down the line treatment to take into account.
As has previously been said, the Americans pioneered Proton Therapy (amongst other treatment and procedures) and it is not surprising that they should wish to capitalize on this. However, centres for it have now spread to many countries so there is more competition for the USA and greater need for them to promote the treatment trading on their experience and quality of treatment as they can't compete on cost. Some hospitals are particularly well known for certain specialities but the general consensus of surveys comparing hospitals worldwide puts the best American hospitals at the top of the league.
Barry |
User
We have a couple of members that have had this. Used as a salvage treatment it seems to be effective although the data on proton beam therapy as a primary treatment for PCa were disappointing. One of the big NHS hospitals was planning to install by 2018 I think but the intention is to use it for really specific cases including cancer of the eye, some brain tumours and some childhood cancers.
ManwithPC can tell you much more than I can.
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
Show Most Thanked Posts
User
We have a couple of members that have had this. Used as a salvage treatment it seems to be effective although the data on proton beam therapy as a primary treatment for PCa were disappointing. One of the big NHS hospitals was planning to install by 2018 I think but the intention is to use it for really specific cases including cancer of the eye, some brain tumours and some childhood cancers.
ManwithPC can tell you much more than I can.
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
Hi Lyn
You've got to love the Americans they big everything up so much . Very informative but a bit too Hollywood lol
User
To to add a little to what Lyn has said.
The medical facilities in the USA have the most experience of protons for treating cancer and this is not just a recent way of treating cancer as some may suppose. The first humans to be treated with the proton beam was in the mid fifties at the University of California Lawrence Berkeley. The first hospital based treatment was given in the late nineteen eighties at Loma Linda. It think it it is surprising therefore that there does not seem to be more published findings on how protons compare with photons after so many years. Both photon and proton treatment has been refined over the years and the latter is now becoming available in an increasing number of countries. Whilst the case for it's treatment for prostate cancer has not been so well made, the NHS have paid to send some, mainly children to the USA for treatment where protons have demonstrated an advantage, especially for certain tumours in the head, largely due to minimising collateral damage that photons would cause.
Three of the reasons, why proton beam therapy has not been taken up more widely are 1) it is very expensive compared to a linac delivering photons, 2) It requires more space and 3) It needs highly trained operators, physicists and mathematicians. However, advances in design, size and lower cost in train of proton beam machines mean it is likely these will become more widely used for more cancers.
For those that are interested in more detail these Cancer Research UK links may prove helpful.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/09/16/proton-therapy-is-coming-to-the-uk-but-what-does-it-mean-for-patients/
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/07/16/proton-beam-therapy-where-are-we-now
An even more powerful hadron therapy is using carbon ions but at present this requires a synchrotron, a quantum leap in size and cost over the cyclotron presently used for proton beam. Then experiments are being done with anti-proton or anti-matter which it is thought may prove an even more effective cancer killer. Fascinating though all this is, I am sure we would much rather have an injection or pill to eradicate this disease or better still prevent it in the first place.
Edited by member 18 Mar 2017 at 03:12
| Reason: Not specified
Barry |
User
Tony,
I thought I would reply to your comment about the Hollywood approach of the Americans.
Health provision has become Internationally marketed as a service. We in the UK have been largely insulated from it because the vast majority of the UK population look no further than the NHS for treatment and follow up at no medical cost at the point of use. The main exceptions to this is where there is a prolonged wait in the NHS or where a type of treatment is not available here or if only available privately, is less expensive abroad and often requires a potential patient does a lot of research. Many hospitals worldwide, including some in the UK, now advertise what they can offer, largely but not exclusively on the Internet. Americans marketing of healthcare, as with some other commodities and services, sometimes has an aggressive or different, sometimes glitzy style which does not sit very well with many of us. Setting this aside, as with any product or service, one has to consider if it is affordable and provides something that is sufficiently superior to what is available within an acceptable time at home. There is also the matter of follow up and potentially further down the line treatment to take into account.
As has previously been said, the Americans pioneered Proton Therapy (amongst other treatment and procedures) and it is not surprising that they should wish to capitalize on this. However, centres for it have now spread to many countries so there is more competition for the USA and greater need for them to promote the treatment trading on their experience and quality of treatment as they can't compete on cost. Some hospitals are particularly well known for certain specialities but the general consensus of surveys comparing hospitals worldwide puts the best American hospitals at the top of the league.
Barry |
User
Hi Barry
I couldn't agree more , I think the Da Vinci Robot originated from there