I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search

Notification

Error

Does Radiotherapy kill all the cancer cells

Email this conversation Print this conversation
User
Posted 18 Dec 2022 at 21:23

What is seen as successful RT?


All views and experiences very welcome. 

Edited by member 19 Dec 2022 at 09:38  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 15:59

With G7 psa9 T2c, And aged 70. If untreated this cancer would kill you, but it would probably take at least five years. At the moment your chance of having distant micromets is very small. So targeting HT at a T2c tumour means it is highly likely to knock out 100% off your cancer, and if it only knocked out 99% It would probably take five to ten years before your PSA got back to 9.


So have the treatment, have PSA tests at whatever frequency is recommended and live your life as if you are cured, because you probably will be and if you ain't it's going to be far enough in the future that old age will be with you anyway.

Dave

User
Posted 09 Jan 2023 at 23:36

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member


Short answer: Yes it does, but it take longer than you think.


Long answer: 


https://community.prostatecanceruk.org/posts/t23233-Brachytherapy---Radiation-buildup


So successful RT is that which has damaged every cancer cell sufficiently that it can't reproduce, and hasn't damaged healthy cells so much that you have severe side effects. 


I would also argue that if RT left some viable cancer cells behind, but it took longer for them to regenerate to a troublesome level, than for you to die of some other cause, then it is still successful RT.



Dave, 


Whilst I agree with you about the way cancer cells may be affected over time by RT and said so in my original reply, your categorical  answer 'Yes' to the question 'Does Radiation kill all cancer cells' is incorrect.  As I said 'Not necessarily' is the case.  In order to sufficiently damage cancer cells they require sufficient dose of RT so are repeatedly subjected to repeat fractions of External Beam or the continuous radiation of radioactive seeds with this form of Brachytherapy RT.  Certainly, with External Beam, previous studies have shown that results are more successful in killing cancer cells as more radiation is given, (although hypofractionation has enabled fewer fractions of higher dose enabling comparable results with overall fewer Gys).  Unfortunately, as more radiation is given, side effects increase, so there is a limit to how how much radiation is given.  Also, it is known that some types of cancer cells are more radio resistant than others.   From Cancer Research UK "Cancer may sometimes come back after cancer drug treatment or radiotherapy. This can happen because the treatment didn't destroy all the cancer cells."  and 


"if radiotherapy doesn't kill all of the cancer cells, they will regrow at some point in the future."


There are numerous reliable references made to RT failing to kill all targeted cancer cells, even in the longer term. 


 


 

Edited by moderator 06 Jul 2023 at 13:25  | Reason: Not specified

Barry
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 00:57
"Does Radiotherapy Kill All Cancer Cells"

Not necessarily. Some cells may be radio resistant and may live on, also the RT must be planned in such a way that the cancer cells receive sufficient radiation to damage their DNA causing single or better still double breaks so these cells are unable to divide and just die, (apoptosis). This can be challenging, particularly where the cancer cells are located near other organs and the need to limit damage to these so as to minimise toxicity.

It is possible that the RT may kill all the targeted cancer cells but then in due course a new tumour may grow in the Prostate. So although in a sense the original RT may have been considered successful, the new grown tumour leads to it being regarded as failed RT. This is what happened to me so in my case I had HIFU (twice), as 'salvage treatment for failed RT'.

Sometimes RT may be given by itself or in conjunction with systemic treatment to where cancer cells have been seen to have formed tumours, (Oligometastases), provided there are only a small number of tumours and reaching them with RT does not conflict with the paths of previous RT. This may or may not work, although if the cancer cells have spread in this fashion it is highly likely that other sites have been seeded but will not generally be treated with further RT except to alleviate pain in bones further down the line.
Barry
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 01:02

Short answer: Yes it does, but it take longer than you think.


Long answer: 


https://community.prostatecanceruk.org/posts/t23233-Brachytherapy---Radiation-buildup


So successful RT is that which has damaged every cancer cell sufficiently that it can't reproduce, and hasn't damaged healthy cells so much that you have severe side effects. 


I would also argue that if RT left some viable cancer cells behind, but it took longer for them to regenerate to a troublesome level, than for you to die of some other cause, then it is still successful RT.


 


 


 

Dave

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 02:40

This leads in to a question I've been pondering recently. I think I'm right in saying that, particularly early in life, our body is capable of recognizing and dealing with occasional upstart cancer cells. I'm wondering a) if I've got that right and b) if that's the case, do we retain the ability to kill the odd cancer cell or is it inevitable that any remaining cancer cell will unfailingly multiply?


Jules

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 10:41

Hi Jules, you are right that the immune system sweeps up mutant cells which are randomly developing throughout our life. Cancer cells have a mutation which hides them from the immune system. I don't know how effective that is. If less than 100% I would guess that once RT knocked out 99% then the immune system could deal with the rest.


However my guess is that it does completely hide the cells from the immune system. My thinking is that people with advanced cancer do not show symptoms of an overloaded immune system, despite having millions of cancer cells. As far as I know white blood cells etc. stay within normal limits.


Remember I don't even have an O level in biology, so the above is based on what I have read and logical inferences from that. I hope my logic is sound, but I can't guarantee my assumptions are.

Edited by member 19 Dec 2022 at 23:46  | Reason: Not specified

Dave

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 20:03

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member


This leads in to a question I've been pondering recently. I think I'm right in saying that, particularly early in life, our body is capable of recognizing and dealing with occasional upstart cancer cells. I'm wondering a) if I've got that right and b) if that's the case, do we retain the ability to kill the odd cancer cell or is it inevitable that any remaining cancer cell will unfailingly multiply?


Jules



That's also my understanding, Jules - the body can sometimes clean up cancer cells by itself. This is why positive lymph nodes found close to the prostate & removed during RP don't lead to an automatic upgrade to N1 / advanced PCa ... it is possibly that a few cells have made it into local nodes where they have been sieved (if you like) and prevented from coursing madly around the rest of the lymphatic system.


The whole premise of things like the Jane Plant programme (for those who put value in it) is to give the body enough tools to do as much mopping up as possible

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 20:20
The answer is definitely yes Jules, the scientists who study the processes and DNA mutations that lead to cancer say that what is extraordinary is not that people get cancer, but that it is so rare compared with the number of mutations that might cause it.

Basically, the body has evolved a whole number of systems to spot potential cancer cells and get rid of them. Actually getting cancer means that some of those cells have managed to dodge those protective mechanisms. A huge area of cancer research these days is trying to get the immune system to recognise (and eliminate) the cancer cells it missed the first time - it has been very successful in a few types of cancer though I haven't come across anything on prostate cancer yet.
User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 13:52

I had PSA 39.4 back in August 2022, Gleason 4+3=7, stage T2, no evidence on scans of any spread to bones and lymph nodes.


However the MRI scan shows the cancer has come through the capsule so they have re- staged T3.


05/01/23 - had first face to face with surgeon, who went through all my test and scan results. Up to this point I've been thinking I'd go for surgery, basically wanting this this cancer out and if I need more treatment, I later have RT.


When I asked for his professional opinion, he said either surgery or HT with RT would be suitable treatment's for me. It seems experts/professionals don't like to commit these days do they!


He has now (nearly 5 months after diagnosis), prescribed hormone tablets to "slow the cancer growth". Why aren't we given this in the early weeks when it is certain that you have cancer? Surely this would be a worth while initial treatment before a final treatment option has been chosen some months later!


They also took blood to check my current PSA so it will be interesting to see what that is, has it changed? When I know this, I need to decide on which treatment I will choose.


Am interested in others views on what I've posted here.


Graham

User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 15:03

Grampy, I don't think you can make a fully informed decision without seeing the oncologist. If you haven't been offered an oncology appointment yet, ask for one.


Also, as the cancer has been upgraded to T3, was the surgeon saying that the op would be nerve-sparing or non nerve-sparing? That makes a massive difference to side effects and, potentially,  quality of life afterwards. 

Edited by member 07 Jan 2023 at 15:06  | Reason: Not specified

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 22:10
Graham, as I understand it the outcomes (probability of no relapse) from surgery and radiotherapy for a Gleason 7 prostate cancer patient are not very different. So the doctors can't say what is "best", it depends on the patient deciding which pattern of side effects they can best tolerate.

Hormone therapy prior to surgery isn't routine, so isn't offered immediately on diagnosis. However it improves the outcomes from radiotherapy so if you opted for that treatment I am sure they would recommend it for several months beforehand.

I suspect the repeat PSA is simply routine. Having several PSA readings over time will give an indication of how fast your cancer cells are dividing which is important information in planning clinical treatment.

Good luck with making a decision, it is probably the most nerve-wracking point of the whole process.
User
Posted 08 Jan 2023 at 18:18

Yes, I was in a similar situation - I decided on the HT + RT route, as an OP scared me & it's side effects, even more.
My outcome a few years on, has been fine.
Sex is there, but no liquid - which reduces the pleasure (though less mess !).

Edited by member 08 Jan 2023 at 18:19  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 09 Jan 2023 at 03:34

Tony


I hope that I am answering the question or at the very least making a contribution to the debate.


My decision making, which is still incomplete, has so far been founded on my own research. I have made the following analysis to inform my decision making. The choice on the type of treatment is based upon the individual's particular disease balanced with their quality of life concern.


Going down the RT path as I have elected then leads to a decision on which type of radiation therapy is best suited to my advanced cancer, balancing efficacy with risk. I am still struggling to decide if I should do the lymph nodes. In your decision making you elected not to have hormone therapy. Unfortunately, my urologist decided that it is necessary to shrink my cancer tumours with hormone treatment prior to RT, to make it more effective. I assume that shrinking the tumour makes it easier to pinpoint and treat while minimising side effects. Nonetheless, I will never be the same man again. 


As Barry has alluded to, the RT aims to destroy or damage the genes of the cancer cells. The breaks made in the cells by the radiation will stop the cancer cells from growing and dividing and over time most of them will die. Of course radiation can also cause damage to healthy cancer cells but most will recover. Reading stories on this site, it is very apparent to me that adverse reactions not only vary amongst individuals but timescales vary. RT does not always kill cancer cells immediately, for that matter, it does not always damage good cells immediately. Moreover, there is a small possibility that radiation can cause another cancer. It is a balance of benefit versus risk. 


I think Barry is correct in saying that it is normally effective. My understanding is 90% success overall. I'll have some of that sir! 


One factor that I think is incredibly relevant in relation to choosing treatment, particularly in considering side effects, is the age of diagnosis. I am 61 and make my choices pertinent to my expectations of life expectancy. Of course this is now a lot shorter prior to diagnosis.


I imagine my decision making at 51 would have been different to my choices at 61 or indeed 71. I don't want to sound negative but, in my thinking I have dispensed with the notion of cure and the focus in my own case is to pursue treatment that will stave off the inevitable for as long as possible and maintain a quality of life. But to get back on message 90% seems to provide a large dose of certainty, in a world where the only certainty is uncertainty.


Gabriel


 

Edited by member 09 Jan 2023 at 03:41  | Reason: Not specified

Show Most Thanked Posts
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 00:57
"Does Radiotherapy Kill All Cancer Cells"

Not necessarily. Some cells may be radio resistant and may live on, also the RT must be planned in such a way that the cancer cells receive sufficient radiation to damage their DNA causing single or better still double breaks so these cells are unable to divide and just die, (apoptosis). This can be challenging, particularly where the cancer cells are located near other organs and the need to limit damage to these so as to minimise toxicity.

It is possible that the RT may kill all the targeted cancer cells but then in due course a new tumour may grow in the Prostate. So although in a sense the original RT may have been considered successful, the new grown tumour leads to it being regarded as failed RT. This is what happened to me so in my case I had HIFU (twice), as 'salvage treatment for failed RT'.

Sometimes RT may be given by itself or in conjunction with systemic treatment to where cancer cells have been seen to have formed tumours, (Oligometastases), provided there are only a small number of tumours and reaching them with RT does not conflict with the paths of previous RT. This may or may not work, although if the cancer cells have spread in this fashion it is highly likely that other sites have been seeded but will not generally be treated with further RT except to alleviate pain in bones further down the line.
Barry
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 01:02

Short answer: Yes it does, but it take longer than you think.


Long answer: 


https://community.prostatecanceruk.org/posts/t23233-Brachytherapy---Radiation-buildup


So successful RT is that which has damaged every cancer cell sufficiently that it can't reproduce, and hasn't damaged healthy cells so much that you have severe side effects. 


I would also argue that if RT left some viable cancer cells behind, but it took longer for them to regenerate to a troublesome level, than for you to die of some other cause, then it is still successful RT.


 


 


 

Dave

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 02:40

This leads in to a question I've been pondering recently. I think I'm right in saying that, particularly early in life, our body is capable of recognizing and dealing with occasional upstart cancer cells. I'm wondering a) if I've got that right and b) if that's the case, do we retain the ability to kill the odd cancer cell or is it inevitable that any remaining cancer cell will unfailingly multiply?


Jules

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 09:40

Thanks, as ever, for replies from this great forum


Will think on them and reply more fully later. Best wishes Tony 

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 10:41

Hi Jules, you are right that the immune system sweeps up mutant cells which are randomly developing throughout our life. Cancer cells have a mutation which hides them from the immune system. I don't know how effective that is. If less than 100% I would guess that once RT knocked out 99% then the immune system could deal with the rest.


However my guess is that it does completely hide the cells from the immune system. My thinking is that people with advanced cancer do not show symptoms of an overloaded immune system, despite having millions of cancer cells. As far as I know white blood cells etc. stay within normal limits.


Remember I don't even have an O level in biology, so the above is based on what I have read and logical inferences from that. I hope my logic is sound, but I can't guarantee my assumptions are.

Edited by member 19 Dec 2022 at 23:46  | Reason: Not specified

Dave

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 14:17

So maybe if I'm lucky, the medics do a great job etc, the UHRT will kill 99 per cent of the cancer cells.


I get to have another ten good years at least, and the RT is fully justified. 


Of course things may not go so well, but I will do my best to be positive about the journey ahead. 


 

Edited by member 19 Dec 2022 at 14:18  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 15:59

With G7 psa9 T2c, And aged 70. If untreated this cancer would kill you, but it would probably take at least five years. At the moment your chance of having distant micromets is very small. So targeting HT at a T2c tumour means it is highly likely to knock out 100% off your cancer, and if it only knocked out 99% It would probably take five to ten years before your PSA got back to 9.


So have the treatment, have PSA tests at whatever frequency is recommended and live your life as if you are cured, because you probably will be and if you ain't it's going to be far enough in the future that old age will be with you anyway.

Dave

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 20:03

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member


This leads in to a question I've been pondering recently. I think I'm right in saying that, particularly early in life, our body is capable of recognizing and dealing with occasional upstart cancer cells. I'm wondering a) if I've got that right and b) if that's the case, do we retain the ability to kill the odd cancer cell or is it inevitable that any remaining cancer cell will unfailingly multiply?


Jules



That's also my understanding, Jules - the body can sometimes clean up cancer cells by itself. This is why positive lymph nodes found close to the prostate & removed during RP don't lead to an automatic upgrade to N1 / advanced PCa ... it is possibly that a few cells have made it into local nodes where they have been sieved (if you like) and prevented from coursing madly around the rest of the lymphatic system.


The whole premise of things like the Jane Plant programme (for those who put value in it) is to give the body enough tools to do as much mopping up as possible

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 20:20
The answer is definitely yes Jules, the scientists who study the processes and DNA mutations that lead to cancer say that what is extraordinary is not that people get cancer, but that it is so rare compared with the number of mutations that might cause it.

Basically, the body has evolved a whole number of systems to spot potential cancer cells and get rid of them. Actually getting cancer means that some of those cells have managed to dodge those protective mechanisms. A huge area of cancer research these days is trying to get the immune system to recognise (and eliminate) the cancer cells it missed the first time - it has been very successful in a few types of cancer though I haven't come across anything on prostate cancer yet.
User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 21:17

Hi Dave, thanks for encouraging words. Actually I am Tumour stage II A, so hopefully the prognosis is even better. 

User
Posted 19 Dec 2022 at 21:43

Thank you Dave, Lyn and J-B ... onwards


Jules

User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 13:52

I had PSA 39.4 back in August 2022, Gleason 4+3=7, stage T2, no evidence on scans of any spread to bones and lymph nodes.


However the MRI scan shows the cancer has come through the capsule so they have re- staged T3.


05/01/23 - had first face to face with surgeon, who went through all my test and scan results. Up to this point I've been thinking I'd go for surgery, basically wanting this this cancer out and if I need more treatment, I later have RT.


When I asked for his professional opinion, he said either surgery or HT with RT would be suitable treatment's for me. It seems experts/professionals don't like to commit these days do they!


He has now (nearly 5 months after diagnosis), prescribed hormone tablets to "slow the cancer growth". Why aren't we given this in the early weeks when it is certain that you have cancer? Surely this would be a worth while initial treatment before a final treatment option has been chosen some months later!


They also took blood to check my current PSA so it will be interesting to see what that is, has it changed? When I know this, I need to decide on which treatment I will choose.


Am interested in others views on what I've posted here.


Graham

User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 14:57

Thanks very much for reply Graham. My lead doctor recommended surgery, the other two opinions were 'up to you, as long as you get treated' . 


I went for RT as surgery really scares me, specifically the after effects, not the op itself so much. My lead doctor was totally fine with that choice.


I was glad to avoid HT, but understand totally your concerns. I won't comment specifically as to whether you got good advice as I feel its not my place to do so. 


I really hope you get successful treatment and wish you the very best 


Tony


 

Edited by member 07 Jan 2023 at 14:58  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 15:03

Grampy, I don't think you can make a fully informed decision without seeing the oncologist. If you haven't been offered an oncology appointment yet, ask for one.


Also, as the cancer has been upgraded to T3, was the surgeon saying that the op would be nerve-sparing or non nerve-sparing? That makes a massive difference to side effects and, potentially,  quality of life afterwards. 

Edited by member 07 Jan 2023 at 15:06  | Reason: Not specified

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 18:58

Thanks Lyn, I haven't been offered an oncologist, I'll mention this to my urology nurse next week.


When I discussed surgery with the surgeon, I did say that we didn't have any sexual desires now in our 70's but he didn't make any comment on this. I don't know if this makes the surgery any easier/less complex for the surgeon.


My wife would prefer that I went with RT etc not surgery so I have to bear this in mind when making my final decision.


Thanks again, Graham


 

User
Posted 07 Jan 2023 at 22:10
Graham, as I understand it the outcomes (probability of no relapse) from surgery and radiotherapy for a Gleason 7 prostate cancer patient are not very different. So the doctors can't say what is "best", it depends on the patient deciding which pattern of side effects they can best tolerate.

Hormone therapy prior to surgery isn't routine, so isn't offered immediately on diagnosis. However it improves the outcomes from radiotherapy so if you opted for that treatment I am sure they would recommend it for several months beforehand.

I suspect the repeat PSA is simply routine. Having several PSA readings over time will give an indication of how fast your cancer cells are dividing which is important information in planning clinical treatment.

Good luck with making a decision, it is probably the most nerve-wracking point of the whole process.
User
Posted 08 Jan 2023 at 18:18

Yes, I was in a similar situation - I decided on the HT + RT route, as an OP scared me & it's side effects, even more.
My outcome a few years on, has been fine.
Sex is there, but no liquid - which reduces the pleasure (though less mess !).

Edited by member 08 Jan 2023 at 18:19  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 09 Jan 2023 at 03:34

Tony


I hope that I am answering the question or at the very least making a contribution to the debate.


My decision making, which is still incomplete, has so far been founded on my own research. I have made the following analysis to inform my decision making. The choice on the type of treatment is based upon the individual's particular disease balanced with their quality of life concern.


Going down the RT path as I have elected then leads to a decision on which type of radiation therapy is best suited to my advanced cancer, balancing efficacy with risk. I am still struggling to decide if I should do the lymph nodes. In your decision making you elected not to have hormone therapy. Unfortunately, my urologist decided that it is necessary to shrink my cancer tumours with hormone treatment prior to RT, to make it more effective. I assume that shrinking the tumour makes it easier to pinpoint and treat while minimising side effects. Nonetheless, I will never be the same man again. 


As Barry has alluded to, the RT aims to destroy or damage the genes of the cancer cells. The breaks made in the cells by the radiation will stop the cancer cells from growing and dividing and over time most of them will die. Of course radiation can also cause damage to healthy cancer cells but most will recover. Reading stories on this site, it is very apparent to me that adverse reactions not only vary amongst individuals but timescales vary. RT does not always kill cancer cells immediately, for that matter, it does not always damage good cells immediately. Moreover, there is a small possibility that radiation can cause another cancer. It is a balance of benefit versus risk. 


I think Barry is correct in saying that it is normally effective. My understanding is 90% success overall. I'll have some of that sir! 


One factor that I think is incredibly relevant in relation to choosing treatment, particularly in considering side effects, is the age of diagnosis. I am 61 and make my choices pertinent to my expectations of life expectancy. Of course this is now a lot shorter prior to diagnosis.


I imagine my decision making at 51 would have been different to my choices at 61 or indeed 71. I don't want to sound negative but, in my thinking I have dispensed with the notion of cure and the focus in my own case is to pursue treatment that will stave off the inevitable for as long as possible and maintain a quality of life. But to get back on message 90% seems to provide a large dose of certainty, in a world where the only certainty is uncertainty.


Gabriel


 

Edited by member 09 Jan 2023 at 03:41  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 09 Jan 2023 at 16:21

Hi Gabriel, thanks as always for your posts. Re HT I was never offered it, so luckily for me, I think and hope, it wasnt deemed necessary or useful. 


It seems I'm in the intermediate favourable risk group, and with high dose UHRT, I guess they calculate that should be good enough, hope it turns out that way. 


I think your situation is more difficult than mine making your choices tougher. 


Lets hope it works out for the best of us, and of course all on here. I still don't really know how serious my situation is. Because I feel so well, I find it difficult to believe Im facing a life threatening situation. I guess  the next month of treatment will remind me the situation is very serious indeed 😱


 

Edited by member 09 Jan 2023 at 16:27  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 09 Jan 2023 at 23:36

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member


Short answer: Yes it does, but it take longer than you think.


Long answer: 


https://community.prostatecanceruk.org/posts/t23233-Brachytherapy---Radiation-buildup


So successful RT is that which has damaged every cancer cell sufficiently that it can't reproduce, and hasn't damaged healthy cells so much that you have severe side effects. 


I would also argue that if RT left some viable cancer cells behind, but it took longer for them to regenerate to a troublesome level, than for you to die of some other cause, then it is still successful RT.



Dave, 


Whilst I agree with you about the way cancer cells may be affected over time by RT and said so in my original reply, your categorical  answer 'Yes' to the question 'Does Radiation kill all cancer cells' is incorrect.  As I said 'Not necessarily' is the case.  In order to sufficiently damage cancer cells they require sufficient dose of RT so are repeatedly subjected to repeat fractions of External Beam or the continuous radiation of radioactive seeds with this form of Brachytherapy RT.  Certainly, with External Beam, previous studies have shown that results are more successful in killing cancer cells as more radiation is given, (although hypofractionation has enabled fewer fractions of higher dose enabling comparable results with overall fewer Gys).  Unfortunately, as more radiation is given, side effects increase, so there is a limit to how how much radiation is given.  Also, it is known that some types of cancer cells are more radio resistant than others.   From Cancer Research UK "Cancer may sometimes come back after cancer drug treatment or radiotherapy. This can happen because the treatment didn't destroy all the cancer cells."  and 


"if radiotherapy doesn't kill all of the cancer cells, they will regrow at some point in the future."


There are numerous reliable references made to RT failing to kill all targeted cancer cells, even in the longer term. 


 


 

Edited by moderator 06 Jul 2023 at 13:25  | Reason: Not specified

Barry
 
Forum Jump  
Email this conversation Print this conversation

Join the online community now.

Click through to become a member and gain access to support, information and real time replies.




MenuTop ▲
©2024 Prostate Cancer UK