ABC had a program on Prostate Cancer last month (February 2006) and missed the mark on thorough research when they failed to mention “Proton Therapy”. The question is, “How can you continue to ignore “Protons” when there are multi-million dollar Proton facilities about to open in the USA and more worldwide?
A recent comment from a Urologist in March 2006 to a patient with Prostate cancer shows how mis-informed some in the Urologist choose to be when he said, “proton treatment is no different than x-ray in outcome, does not kill the prostate” and another Urologist who said “It’s Quackery”.
As a matter of fact if you wish to continue you current life style and based on my experience you don’t “Kill the Prostate” you kill the CANCER in the Prostate!
These “professionals are short on knowledge” and need to get up to speed, here are a few questions they should be able to answer,
Why has M.D. Anderson’s prestigious Cancer Center built a Proton Treatment Facility at a substantial price over $100 million to treat the Prostate and many other cancers and benign tumors?
Why is University of Florida Shands Proton Treatment facility (at a similar price) about to open in Jacksonville, Florida?
Why are the Midwest Radiotherapy Center in Bloomington, Indiana, and Mass. General Hospital in cooperation with Harvard University in Boston and Loma Linda University Medical Center in Loma Linda, CA., treating Prostates with protons?
How did Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia persuade the state and its trustees to allot $189 Million to build a Proton Treatment center there, with the primary focus on treating Prostate Cancer.
Why did the Rinecker Proton Center (RPTC) just open in Munich, Germany? And why in the world would we have protons in use at the following addresses if these Urologists are correct?
• Wanjie Proton Therapy Center, Zibo, China.
• TRIUMF Proton Therapy Facility in Canada, I quote from their web site:
“The Proton Treatment Facility at TRIUMF is dedicated to treating a cancerous growth on the back of the eye, called choroidal melanomas. Before proton treatment became available, the most common course of action was removal of the eye. Other possible treatments included surgical removal of the tumour (which has severe limitations), or implanting a radioactive disk on the wall of the eye under the tumour for some days. These alternatives were unsuitable for large tumours, and could damage sensitive parts of the eye, often resulting in loss of vision. After proton therapy, however, patients can retain useful vision. The protons enter the eye at a carefully controlled energy, and come to rest at a precise, predictable distance inside. They deposit their energy of motion (kinetic energy) in a very narrow layer, destroying living cells in that layer. Because the beam of protons is so concentrated and deposits its energy so predictably, we can successfully destroy a tumour while better preserving the other nearby parts of the eye.”
THIS IS WHAT THE PROTON DOES FOR THE PROSTATE AND MANY OTHER CANCERS.
• Centre de Protontherapie, Orsay, France and Nice, France – Old info but here’s what they say:
“From the French Website CEDIT in 2002 “State of Use: there are about twenty centers for proton therapy and Hadron therapy with heavy ions in the world, most of which offer only proton therapy. Two of these are located in France: in Orsay and Nice. Most centers divide their activity between fundamental research and clinical practice, but seven centers offer purely medical services. About twenty new centers are planned, most of them for proton therapy. “
Many of the websites contain old information as above (2002) and that is why it is essential that you get a second opinion in 2006 from a Proton Radiation Oncologist, at a facility that is on the leading edge of proton treatment. As of today, March 15, 2006 Loma Linda is the leader in Proton treatment for the Prostate. Thanks for asking – Jim Tuggey
NO MEDICAL ADVICE: Material appearing here represents opinions offered by non-medically-trained laypersons. Comments shown here should NEVER be interpreted as specific medical advice and must be used only as background information when consulting with a qualified medical professional.