Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / August 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

IMRT vs. 3D-CRT

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MAP - 24 Jul 2006 16:43 GMT
Hello All,

I have 2 opinions about radiation post surgery which was on May 10 (my
PSA is "undetectable" after surgery.  The prostate path report post
surgery - seminal vesicle involvement, everything else negative)

Opinion #1:  IMRT - dose 5000 units
Opinion #2:  3D-CRT - dose 6600 units - This Rad Onc. told me that IMRT
is an overkill in my case (he said that he can retire sooner if he does
IMRT every time, as it costs more - I wish to get the best treatment no
matter what it costs).  He also said that 5000 units is not enough, I
might as well not go for radiation at such a small dose!

I am leaning towards Option #2 based on my impression of the doctor/his
reputation and not the technology.  Any comments will be appreciated.

People who got radiation for 6 weeks - What was the fatigue like?  Any
other effects?  Did you take time off from work?  Is radiation best in
the AM or PM if you continued working during it?  I was advised to
continue working as it may expedite recovery.

Thank you all in advance.
Steve Jordan - 24 Jul 2006 18:18 GMT
> I have 2 opinions about radiation post surgery which was on May 10 (my
> PSA is "undetectable" after surgery.  The prostate path report post
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> might as well not go for radiation at such a small dose!
>  
Why radiation with such a low PSA? If it's post-RP, then it's "salvage"
radiation. Something about the result of the RP is not optimum.

What is to be treated via the RT?

What "units?" Grays?
> I am leaning towards Option #2 based on my impression of the doctor/his
> reputation and not the technology.  Any comments will be appreciated.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> continue working as it may expedite recovery.
>  
I underwent 76 Gy (Grays) of IMRT ending October 2004. This does not
make me an expert, though. I must observe, though, that the contemplated
dosages seem rather low. This may be a function of what is to be treated.

Included was 45 Gy to seminal vesicles and 40 to pelvic lymph nodes.

It was "salvage" after unsuccessful cryotherapy.

Can't comment on fatigue, as I was also on adjuvant ADT. I have clocked
18 months of 0.01 ng/mL PSAs, even though I stopped ADT as of the March
(monthly) injection.

Had some urinary and fecal urgency for a few weeks. Inconvenient but
bearable.

I understand from others and my own experience that it is normally not
necessary to take time off work, therefore the time of day of the tx is
not important.

Once again, I recommend that MAP explore the authoritative website of
the Prostate Cancer Research Institute to learn more. See,
http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html

And last, my experience may very well not resemble that of anyone else
in the universe. We are all different. Therein lies the risk of
depending upon anecdotes of others to make tx decisions.

Regards,

Steve J

"The thing is to expect nothing in particular, but (to) be aware of the lack
of enforceable guarantees or enforceable contracts with
nature/god/entropy as to the condition or durability of our bodies."
-- Brian Brunner, PCa survivor, December 12, 2005 on The Prostate
Problems Mailing List
Thank you, Brian.
Alan Meyer - 24 Jul 2006 20:18 GMT
> Hello All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Thank you all in advance.

I can't answer all your questions, but I'll share my own experience
with you for whatever that's worth.

I was told by two different radiation oncologists that, for my
case (radiation as an adjunct to high dose rate brachytherapy)
there would be no difference between ordinary 3D and IMRT
(which is a refinement of 3D).  Both proposed ordinary 3D.

I suspect, but I'm not knowledgeable about this, that there is
no difference in effectiveness between the two.  If either one
puts, say 66 grays on the target, then you get 66 grays either
way.  The difference is the intensity of the beam from each angle.
So if there's a sensitive area, e.g., the anus or bladder that might
be in the beam, IMRT can direct a bit less radiation that way by
directing a bit more though a different path.  At any rate, that's
my non-expert understanding.

Whether the IMRT or 3D is important or not may also depend
on the dosage.  The higher the dose, the more important it
may be to try to spare the most sensitive areas.  But your rad
onc knows vastly more about this than I do.

As to tiredness and working - I had radiation plus Lupron and
never missed a day of work and never felt too tired.  I got
radiation in the morning and went to work afterwards.  I was
in very good physical shape before treatment and continued
to work out during treatment.  My ability to workout declined
drastically.  I went from running 4 miles in 36 minutes to 1 mile
in 11 minutes before giving out.  But I guess I had enough
reserve energy that I never dipped into what I needed for
daily life.  I believe the loss of energy I did experience was
more than 50% due to the Lupron.

Other side effects included bloody ejaculation during sex
(such as it was with Lupron), aggravation of a pre-existing
hemmorhoid - clearing up a few weeks after treatment, and
urinary restriction due to swelling of the tissue around the
urethra - causing frequent urination (up 7 times a night at
the worst of it.)  That lasted about 5 months but was much
relieved by Flowmax.

I may also have had some reduction in potency, but it's
hard to tell for sure.  Getting older has that effect even
without treatment.

My big questions for you are the same as Steve's questions.

Are you really sure you need radiation at all?  You haven't
yet seen a PSA rise.  It's conceivable you could go for the
rest of your life and never see a rise.  If radiation will help
you, it will probably help more if taken early than late, but
you may not need it.

And secondly, is 66 "units" (grays?) enough?  You might
do some Pubmed searches for salvage radiation doses
for prostate cancer, and look at the cancer.gov and some
of the prostate cancer websites for more information.

As I understand it (and I may not understand it at all), you
can't treat a small amount of cancer with a small dose and
a bigger amount with a bigger dose.  There's a certain minimum
dose before the radiation starts to do real damage to any
cancer cells whether there are few or many of them.  Over
the last decade or so, the recommendations for minimum
dose have gone up.

Good luck.

   Alan
Beverley - 25 Jul 2006 03:45 GMT
My husband had 5 weeks of EBRT on an IMRT before his brachytherapy. He got
in the morning, went to the local hospital, jumped on the table, then went
to work, (he was only a few minutes late each day) and put in a full day
behind his desk. By the end of his 5 weeks he was going to bed about an hour
earlier and he took naps on the weekends. His is not a heavy physical job
but it is a high stress "must be accurate" type of job. He works in a cube
farm as a computer programmer for a national company. He was 56 YO at the
time. He never missed work over it.
Bev

> Hello All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Thank you all in advance.
Bill - 25 Jul 2006 16:16 GMT
MAP, first of all I don't think RT as a primary Tx or salvage after
brachy or cryo is the same as SRT after RP so make sure you are
comparing apples and apples. However, the general SEs may be similar.
My retired neurosurgeon cousin recently put me in contact w/ another
neuro buddy of his who had just undergone salvage IMRT after RP. Since
I had been told in 4/04 at M.D. Anderson that 3D was just as good as
IMRT for SRT, one of my first questions was why IMRT as opposed to 3D.
This guy's daughter is a doctor at Johns Hopkins and he had
consultation from many well-placed doctors. What I gathered is that
IMRT is becoming the standard form of RT for all purposes. Supposedly
you can get a bigger dose because it is more focused so I don't
understand why your IMRT dose is less than the 3D. It could be that
more of the IMRT will get to the right place than w/ 3D so it takes
less - I don't know. But you need to know those things before you
decide. You should also know that many uros and med-oncs consider
seminal vesicle involvement not a reason to jump into SRT but a
contraindication! You need to seriously evaluate the probability of
non-local disease. Not much point in having SRT if you have systemic
disease.

Bill Denton
RP 2/12/02
PSA .93
Memphis
MAP - 21 Aug 2006 16:55 GMT
Hello All,

After reading all your comments, I chose 3D-CRT and will start today at
USC.  My decision was based upon the reputation of the Radiation
Oncologist as I felt more comfortable with his explaination.  He also
works on the same team as my Euro.

Thanks for your helpful comments.
Bill - 22 Aug 2006 16:20 GMT
Good luck, MAP, but I have a couple of questions/observations. You said
earlier that IMRT was more expensive but you wanted the best Tx
regardless of cost. I think we can all agree w/ that but are you paying
for it? If not, and you were, would that have made a difference? Also,
Steve, this is adjuvant - not salvage - RT because he has not had a
biological failure. Which brings me to the nagging question - MAP, why
is is that you are having RT at this time? Did you discuss w/ any of
your doctors that SVI is a contraindication? I'm not so much
second-guessing but interested in the decision process and factors that
went into it.    

Bill Denton
RP 2/12/02
PSA .96
Memphis
MAP - 23 Aug 2006 16:34 GMT
Bill - Here are the answers to your questions

>I think we can all agree w/ that but are you paying for it? If not, and you were, would that have made a difference?

I will be paying for very little of it.  But if I had to pay for it
all, it would not have made a diffrence.

> why is is that you are having RT at this time?
Positive margins when they did the biopsy on my prostate post-surgery.
They took 60 samples of lymph nodes, they were all negative.

I consulted five specialists before I made my decisions, 2 Uros, 2 Rad
Oncologist and one Oncologist.  And, I read and read and read...  all
your posts, a book and online.
Beverley - 22 Aug 2006 21:37 GMT
I will not ponder the difference between IMRT and 3D-CRT. I think it is
important that you are comfortable with the rad-onc and his
reputation/statistics. You will now have an excuse for a nap. You know how
they say there are things we can learn for our animals - one is never turn
down the opportunity to pee and the other is to catch a nap whenever
possible. Good luck!
Bev

> Hello All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Thanks for your helpful comments.
Leonard Evens - 23 Aug 2006 16:15 GMT
> I will not ponder the difference between IMRT and 3D-CRT. I think it is
> important that you are comfortable with the rad-onc and his
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
>>Thanks for your helpful comments.

I found Peter Scardino's description of different radiation methods
particularly illuminating.   According to him,  IMRT is a refinement to
3D-CRT, not a separate treatment.  Without  IMRT, 3D-CRT allows does of
about 75 Gys, but with IMRT added, they can go over 80 Gys.   the higher
the dose, the more likely a cure.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.