There are many ways of delivering RT and these are still evolving and being improved on. Clearly, Cyberknife using 5 or maybe even fewer fractions is seen as a benefit to those administering the treatment and for patients. The situation is rather like Proton Beam in certain ways. Both theoretically offer greater precision and for different reasons less collateral damage to normal cells. Proton Beam has not shown to be considerably better than IMRT for Prostate Cancer despite costing very much more. Because it is a more recent development, it can't be said that Cyberknife will prove more successful long term than the ever improving linacs dispensing EBRT or indeed Brachytherapy. Choice for the patient is highly dependent on whether his hospital has the Cyberknife (very few hospitals in the UK do as yet), or if he is prepared to travel, even abroad if he wants Cyberknife or Proton Beam and he is a suitable candidate., Whist generalizations can be made, it would be helpful if a patient could be told what would be the best treatment for him in his individual circumstances (notwithstanding likely side effects), The choice is likely to become increasingly more difficult for many patients as RT further develops and various focal treatments and Nanoknife IRE also become options for some men.

It was interesting what was said about the very low risk of RT initiating secondary cancers many years later as this is one of the main concerns of men considering it.

Thanks for posting.