Re: Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate Cancer

November 28, 2008

Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote

from the article – note by the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

<snip> …. more than 2,000

prostate cancer patients have been treated, and that the approach seems to work

as well as standard treatment with about the same, or perhaps even fewer,

short-term side effects. At least one study that followed patients for several

years indicates that it continues to be safe and effective, and the company is

sponsoring two new studies at multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

“…. the approach SEEMS to work

as well as standard treatment…” - I’d personally like

something more than this vague statement

“…. with the same or PERHAPS even

fewer SHORT-TERM side effects ….” That ‘perhaps’ is a

worry – and I’d also like to know more about both short-term and,

more importantly, long term, side effects

“At least ONE study that followed

patients for several years…..” How many patients, how many

years? Given that this form of therapy has only been used on PCa patients

fairly recently, follow up couldn’t have been too long.

Anyone considering this option for

treatment might like to read a piece I wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm

and follow the links there for more information.

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical

qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since

then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr

“Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of

the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate

data "

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of B

Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008

3:43 AM

To:

malemedicalproblemsgooglegroups; malemedicalproblems ;

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate Cancer

While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients

a safe and effective --

and much more convenient -- alternative to traditional radiation treatment,

many experts fear that it could leave many men unnecessarily vulnerable to

recurrences or potentially serious complications.

Click on the below link

for the full story:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

November 28, 2008

Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote

from the article – note by the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

<snip> …. more than 2,000

prostate cancer patients have been treated, and that the approach seems to work

as well as standard treatment with about the same, or perhaps even fewer,

short-term side effects. At least one study that followed patients for several

years indicates that it continues to be safe and effective, and the company is

sponsoring two new studies at multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

“…. the approach SEEMS to work

as well as standard treatment…” - I’d personally like

something more than this vague statement

“…. with the same or PERHAPS even

fewer SHORT-TERM side effects ….” That ‘perhaps’ is a

worry – and I’d also like to know more about both short-term and,

more importantly, long term, side effects

“At least ONE study that followed

patients for several years…..” How many patients, how many

years? Given that this form of therapy has only been used on PCa patients

fairly recently, follow up couldn’t have been too long.

Anyone considering this option for

treatment might like to read a piece I wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm

and follow the links there for more information.

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical

qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since

then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr

“Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of

the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate

data "

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of B

Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008

3:43 AM

To:

malemedicalproblemsgooglegroups; malemedicalproblems ;

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate Cancer

While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients

a safe and effective --

and much more convenient -- alternative to traditional radiation treatment,

many experts fear that it could leave many men unnecessarily vulnerable to

recurrences or potentially serious complications.

Click on the below link

for the full story:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

November 28, 2008

Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote

from the article – note by the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

<snip> …. more than 2,000

prostate cancer patients have been treated, and that the approach seems to work

as well as standard treatment with about the same, or perhaps even fewer,

short-term side effects. At least one study that followed patients for several

years indicates that it continues to be safe and effective, and the company is

sponsoring two new studies at multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

“…. the approach SEEMS to work

as well as standard treatment…” - I’d personally like

something more than this vague statement

“…. with the same or PERHAPS even

fewer SHORT-TERM side effects ….” That ‘perhaps’ is a

worry – and I’d also like to know more about both short-term and,

more importantly, long term, side effects

“At least ONE study that followed

patients for several years…..” How many patients, how many

years? Given that this form of therapy has only been used on PCa patients

fairly recently, follow up couldn’t have been too long.

Anyone considering this option for

treatment might like to read a piece I wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm

and follow the links there for more information.

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical

qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since

then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr

“Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of

the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate

data "

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of B

Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008

3:43 AM

To:

malemedicalproblemsgooglegroups; malemedicalproblems ;

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate Cancer

While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients

a safe and effective --

and much more convenient -- alternative to traditional radiation treatment,

many experts fear that it could leave many men unnecessarily vulnerable to

recurrences or potentially serious complications.

Click on the below link

for the full story:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

November 29, 2008

I was sitting here thinking about writing a response relating to the

use of CyberKnife for treatment of prostate cancer, and then I read

Terry Herbert's excellent response, and decided to just post a bit of

info relating to the subject and Proton Therapy.

I personally advise against HDR Brachytherapy and also CyberKnife.

After at least five to ten years of data is available that shows low

or minimum secondary cancer, toxicity, or other side effects, then

maybe. And right, I am not an M. D. and have no medical

qualifications; just a couple years of intensive research on the

subject of prostate cancer.

The current 38 to 45 proton treatments at 1.8 to 2.0 Gy per treatment

that is used by all of the five proton centers in the U. S. has been

well established as a safe protocol.

There is an ongoing clinical trial at UFPTI which is attempting

to " shorten " this a bit using slightly higher dose rates. It should

be noted that this trial only increases the daily dose from about 2.0

Gy to about 2.5 Gy.

Here is a link to the UFPTI Trial, which is currently recruiting

candidates: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00693238

Fuller

>

> Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote from the article -

note by

> the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

>

> <snip> .. more than 2,000 prostate cancer patients have been

treated, and

> that the approach seems to work as well as standard treatment with

about the

> same, or perhaps even fewer, short-term side effects. At least one

study

> that followed patients for several years indicates that it

continues to be

> safe and effective, and the company is sponsoring two new studies at

> multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

>

> " .. the approach SEEMS to work as well as standard treatment. " -

I'd

> personally like something more than this vague statement

>

> " .. with the same or PERHAPS even fewer SHORT-TERM side effects .. "

That

> 'perhaps' is a worry - and I'd also like to know more about both

short-term

> and, more importantly, long term, side effects

>

> " At least ONE study that followed patients for several years... "

How many

> patients, how many years? Given that this form of therapy has only

been used

> on PCa patients fairly recently, follow up couldn't have been too

long.

>

> Anyone considering this option for treatment might like to read a

piece I

> wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm and follow

the links

> there for more information.

>

> All the best

>

> Terry Herbert

>

> I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in '96: and

have

> learned a bit since then.

>

> My sites are at www.yananow.net <http://www.yananow.net/> and

> <http://www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za/>

> www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

>

> Dr " Snuffy " Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware

that most

> of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made

with

> inadequate data "

>

November 29, 2008

I agree about " vague generalities " promulgated in this article but that's what

usually

happens between the translation of scientifically oriented text into lingo that

the public

can understand.

And that's not even mentioning the very pervasive lack of consensus on many

issues in

this very incoherent field of Prostate Cancer.

I do think the article served to underscore one very important point however and

that is

that the Prostate patient must be very proactive in getting as much " objective "

information

as is possible and not to rely on advertising hype and to be aware that

Physicians'

treatment decisions are quite often motivated by factors other than what is

actually best

for the patient. Some are actually crooks who happen to have Medical Degrees

too.

That doesn't even have to be as sinister as it sounds. It means that Doctors

themselves

are swayed by Medical Device Mfrs., claims whether consciously or otherwise and

are too

often beholden to the myopia of their own particular area of Specialization.

" If the only

tool you have is a hammer the whole world starts to look like a nail " is a very

appropriate

phrase.

Caveat Emptor

>

> Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote from the article - note by

> the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

>

> <snip> .. more than 2,000 prostate cancer patients have been treated, and

> that the approach seems to work as well as standard treatment with about the

> same, or perhaps even fewer, short-term side effects. At least one study

> that followed patients for several years indicates that it continues to be

> safe and effective, and the company is sponsoring two new studies at

> multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

>

> " .. the approach SEEMS to work as well as standard treatment. " - I'd

> personally like something more than this vague statement

>

> " .. with the same or PERHAPS even fewer SHORT-TERM side effects .. " That

> 'perhaps' is a worry - and I'd also like to know more about both short-term

> and, more importantly, long term, side effects

>

> " At least ONE study that followed patients for several years... " How many

> patients, how many years? Given that this form of therapy has only been used

> on PCa patients fairly recently, follow up couldn't have been too long.

>

> Anyone considering this option for treatment might like to read a piece I

> wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm and follow the links

> there for more information.

>

> All the best

>

> Terry Herbert

>

> I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in '96: and have

> learned a bit since then.

>

> My sites are at www.yananow.net <http://www.yananow.net/> and

> <http://www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za/>

> www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

>

> Dr " Snuffy " Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most

> of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with

> inadequate data "

>

> _____

>

> From: ProstateCancerSupport

> [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of B

> Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008 3:43 AM

> To: malemedicalproblemsgooglegroups;

> malemedicalproblems ; ProstateCancerSupport

> Subject: Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate

> Cancer

>

> While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients a

> safe and effective --

> and much more convenient -- alternative to traditional radiation treatment,

> many experts fear that it could leave many men unnecessarily vulnerable to

> recurrences or potentially serious complications.

>

> Click on the below link for the full story:

>

> <http://www.washingt

> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR200811270

> 2186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

> onpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?

hpid=moreh

> eadlines>

>

November 29, 2008

I agree about " vague generalities " promulgated in this article but that's what

usually

happens between the translation of scientifically oriented text into lingo that

the public

can understand.

And that's not even mentioning the very pervasive lack of consensus on many

issues in

this very incoherent field of Prostate Cancer.

I do think the article served to underscore one very important point however and

that is

that the Prostate patient must be very proactive in getting as much " objective "

information

as is possible and not to rely on advertising hype and to be aware that

Physicians'

treatment decisions are quite often motivated by factors other than what is

actually best

for the patient. Some are actually crooks who happen to have Medical Degrees

too.

That doesn't even have to be as sinister as it sounds. It means that Doctors

themselves

are swayed by Medical Device Mfrs., claims whether consciously or otherwise and

are too

often beholden to the myopia of their own particular area of Specialization.

" If the only

tool you have is a hammer the whole world starts to look like a nail " is a very

appropriate

phrase.

Caveat Emptor

>

> Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote from the article - note by

> the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

>

> <snip> .. more than 2,000 prostate cancer patients have been treated, and

> that the approach seems to work as well as standard treatment with about the

> same, or perhaps even fewer, short-term side effects. At least one study

> that followed patients for several years indicates that it continues to be

> safe and effective, and the company is sponsoring two new studies at

> multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

>

> " .. the approach SEEMS to work as well as standard treatment. " - I'd

> personally like something more than this vague statement

>

> " .. with the same or PERHAPS even fewer SHORT-TERM side effects .. " That

> 'perhaps' is a worry - and I'd also like to know more about both short-term

> and, more importantly, long term, side effects

>

> " At least ONE study that followed patients for several years... " How many

> patients, how many years? Given that this form of therapy has only been used

> on PCa patients fairly recently, follow up couldn't have been too long.

>

> Anyone considering this option for treatment might like to read a piece I

> wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm and follow the links

> there for more information.

>

> All the best

>

> Terry Herbert

>

> I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in '96: and have

> learned a bit since then.

>

> My sites are at www.yananow.net <http://www.yananow.net/> and

> <http://www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za/>

> www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

>

> Dr " Snuffy " Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most

> of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with

> inadequate data "

>

> _____

>

> From: ProstateCancerSupport

> [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of B

> Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008 3:43 AM

> To: malemedicalproblemsgooglegroups;

> malemedicalproblems ; ProstateCancerSupport

> Subject: Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate

> Cancer

>

> While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients a

> safe and effective --

> and much more convenient -- alternative to traditional radiation treatment,

> many experts fear that it could leave many men unnecessarily vulnerable to

> recurrences or potentially serious complications.

>

> Click on the below link for the full story:

>

> <http://www.washingt

> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR200811270

> 2186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

> onpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?

hpid=moreh

> eadlines>

>

November 29, 2008

I agree about " vague generalities " promulgated in this article but that's what

usually

happens between the translation of scientifically oriented text into lingo that

the public

can understand.

And that's not even mentioning the very pervasive lack of consensus on many

issues in

this very incoherent field of Prostate Cancer.

I do think the article served to underscore one very important point however and

that is

that the Prostate patient must be very proactive in getting as much " objective "

information

as is possible and not to rely on advertising hype and to be aware that

Physicians'

treatment decisions are quite often motivated by factors other than what is

actually best

for the patient. Some are actually crooks who happen to have Medical Degrees

too.

That doesn't even have to be as sinister as it sounds. It means that Doctors

themselves

are swayed by Medical Device Mfrs., claims whether consciously or otherwise and

are too

often beholden to the myopia of their own particular area of Specialization.

" If the only

tool you have is a hammer the whole world starts to look like a nail " is a very

appropriate

phrase.

Caveat Emptor

>

> Talk about some vague generalities!! This quote from the article - note by

> the supplier of the very expensive equipment:

>

> <snip> .. more than 2,000 prostate cancer patients have been treated, and

> that the approach seems to work as well as standard treatment with about the

> same, or perhaps even fewer, short-term side effects. At least one study

> that followed patients for several years indicates that it continues to be

> safe and effective, and the company is sponsoring two new studies at

> multiple sites nationwide. <snip>

>

> " .. the approach SEEMS to work as well as standard treatment. " - I'd

> personally like something more than this vague statement

>

> " .. with the same or PERHAPS even fewer SHORT-TERM side effects .. " That

> 'perhaps' is a worry - and I'd also like to know more about both short-term

> and, more importantly, long term, side effects

>

> " At least ONE study that followed patients for several years... " How many

> patients, how many years? Given that this form of therapy has only been used

> on PCa patients fairly recently, follow up couldn't have been too long.

>

> Anyone considering this option for treatment might like to read a piece I

> wrote about it at http://www.yananow.net/cyberknife.htm and follow the links

> there for more information.

>

> All the best

>

> Terry Herbert

>

> I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in '96: and have

> learned a bit since then.

>

> My sites are at www.yananow.net <http://www.yananow.net/> and

> <http://www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za/>

> www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

>

> Dr " Snuffy " Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most

> of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with

> inadequate data "

>

> _____

>

> From: ProstateCancerSupport

> [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of B

> Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008 3:43 AM

> To: malemedicalproblemsgooglegroups;

> malemedicalproblems ; ProstateCancerSupport

> Subject: Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate

> Cancer

>

> While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients a

> safe and effective --

> and much more convenient -- alternative to traditional radiation treatment,

> many experts fear that it could leave many men unnecessarily vulnerable to

> recurrences or potentially serious complications.

>

> Click on the below link for the full story:

>

> <http://www.washingt

> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR200811270

> 2186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

> onpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?

hpid=moreh

> eadlines>

>

November 30, 2008

My husband asked about the Cyber Knife teatment for prostate cancer and

the doctor said NO he would not do it for him because of his young age

54, and not enough data on it. There were 3 men at the time that were

being treated for it on their insistance but they were much older. I

think if my husband was much older he would have opted for it.

Gail

>

> While its advocates say the CyberKnife offers prostate cancer patients

> a safe and effective --

> and much more convenient -- alternative to

> traditional radiation treatment,

> many experts fear that it could leave

> many men unnecessarily vulnerable to recurrences or potentially

serious

> complications.

> Click on the below link for the full

story:<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702186.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

>

November 30, 2008

> My husband asked about the Cyber Knife teatment for prostate cancer and

> the doctor said NO he would not do it for him because of his young age

> 54, and not enough data on it. There were 3 men at the time that were

> being treated for it on their insistance but they were much older. I

> think if my husband was much older he would have opted for it.

Not knowing the clinical status of Gail's DH, only that he seems

interested in radiation therapy (RT), I recommend looking into

Image-Guided RT (IGRT) aka Tomotherapy.

Unlike other RT regimens, IGRT radiates the target from 360 degrees

(physiology permitting) after a CT scan just before each session.

Check Google. NB: Tomotherapy is a brand name.

One can also find information on the encyclopedic website of the

Prostate Cancer Research Institute (PCRI) at

http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html. Search on IGRT.

It's an advancement on IMRT, which uses a " step-and-shoot " method from

roughly 110 degrees.

Regards,

Steve J

Sign In

Re: Experts Debate CyberKnife for Prostate Cancer

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity