There's also an article about this in the Wikipedia.  See:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-invasive_RF_cancer_treatment

This certainly sounds promising, and maybe it's not too good to
be true, though we won't know until there have been clinical
trials.

I would think that there are many technical hurdles to overcome.
A key one is to develop antibody agents that find and bind to
cancer cells, and only to cancer cells, and completely to cancer
cells (i.e., there aren't any, or at least not many, of the
antibodies floating around in the bloodstream), and which are
also capable of carrying target particles - gold or carbon
nanotubes.

I know that the technology for that is under active development.
It has been proposed for at least two other treatments with
similar concepts in which I think there have been some clinical
trials.  See:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody_therapy

One treatment attaches chemotherapy drugs to the antibody agents.
The drugs are taken to cancer cells where they kill the cancer.

A refinement of that uses light sensitive chemotherapy drugs
bound to the antibodies.  The patient is injected with the drugs
in a dark room and kept there for some hours.  After the
antibodies are believed to have bound to the cancer, lasers are
aimed at the cancerous areas to activate the chemotherapeutic
agents.  I think the idea of that one is that the drugs are
harmless until activated, and then only in the area that light
has been shined on.  Then, of course, the patient has to be kept
in the dark until the drugs flush out of his system.

All of these treatments seem to me to hold great promise.  First
of all, they can potentially leave healthy cells alone -
something that our current radiation and chemotherapy techniques
can't do.  Secondly, they don't involve cutting and sewing up.
Thirdly, I would think they could be used to attack metastatic
cancer cells as well as local cancers.  So potentially, some day,
even men with cancer all over their bodies can be cured, or at
least the cancer can be periodically knocked down.

I would think that, even if they work great, the treatments might
not provide permanent cures for all people.  Cancer cells mutate
a lot.  It may be that among any population of cancer cells, some
might not express the target antigen, meaning that the antibodies
won't find them.  They would continue to reproduce and eventually
become the dominant cancer population in a process similar to
hormone refractoriness or chemotherapy refractoriness.

That has been a problem with monoclonal antibody therapy for
breast cancer.  Not all breast cancer cells express the same
antigens (unique molecules on the surfaces of the cells).

So I'm thinking that surgery or radiation or other techniques
that attempt to kill all of the cancer while it's local will
continue to be the first line of defense.  But this new
nanotechnology might be a great second line treatment.  Or maybe
I'm wrong about refractoriness and it will become a good first
line treatment.

We'll have to find out what the trials tell us.  However even if
the trials are not very successful, better antibodies might be
discovered in the future, making the technique more effective.

  Alan