Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / May 2008
Proton Beam
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Charlie - 05 May 2008 23:30 GMT Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence.
If anyone has some usefull links, I be grateful to see them.
Thanks,
Charlie
TIC Gleason 6, PSA 4.2
djperry42@sbcglobal.net - 05 May 2008 23:38 GMT Loma Linda in Southern Cal is one of them - I think they were the first some years ago. There are now a few more around the country which others may chime in about. There are also a couple of guys on this newsgroup who have had the procedure and if my memory is intact, they were and are pleased with the result. You could try a search on this newsgroup to find them and their comments. Dave Perry
> Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an > option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIC Gleason 6, PSA 4.2 alva36@gmail.com - 06 May 2008 00:03 GMT > Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an > option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIC Gleason 6, PSA 4.2 Register and ask your question here: http://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35
-Les
He'sDeadJim - 06 May 2008 00:40 GMT >Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an >option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >TIC Gleason 6, PSA 4.2 Loma Linda is still the primary location for proton beam therapy
http://www.protons.com/proton-therapy/conditions-treated/pelvis.html
I don't go with time is of the essence. With PCa gleason 6 there is no reason to panic. Check on the side effects too for if you choose radical surgery or radiation there's is no do overs afterward.
I just had TFT(Targeted Focal Treatment) which is a clinical study. I'm the 57th to have had this therapy. To make it short I had a 3d imaging biospy better locating the cancer then it was killed off by cryotherapy (ice balls). Now I have to have PSA tests every 3 months and a regular biospy next April. As of now I am theroetically cancer free without any impotence or incontinence. In fact I returned to playing golf today. I had cryosurgery on 4/22/08
http://alprostate.com/aboutus.aspx
alva36@gmail.com - 06 May 2008 00:51 GMT On May 5, 7:40 pm, He'sDeadJim <Hesdeadj...@nienspamhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an > >option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Loma Linda is still the primary location for proton beam therapy As is Mass General and M.D. Anderson in Houston.
-Les
skeptic - 06 May 2008 15:23 GMT On May 5, 7:51�pm, alv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 5, 7:40 pm, He'sDeadJim <Hesdeadj...@nienspamhotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - By coincidence, I just attended a lecture last night (may 5) in Boston by a Dr. Zeitman (sp) from Harvard Medical about proton beam, sponsored by a prostate cancer support group. He explained that it is unique in that it uses little radiation going in and then maxes power at the target point and stops. The problem is they never know exactly where it stops so in his words, they always "overshoot" the beam to make sure they don't stop short of the target. It was a one hour lecture so I'm just paraphrasing one anecdote, but he emphasized that even though he uses it all the time, and he rates it very effective for most, it is in his estimation no better than IMRT or other standard forms of radiation. His opinion is that proton beam is best for brain tumors and for infants, which the machine is used for 80% of the time. If you really want more info i recorded most of it on a digital recorder and can send it to you as an mp3. He also takes issue with a lot of the claims Loma Linda makes about it...again, even though he uses one in his practice. He rates RP, brachytherapy, IMRT and proton beam all equally effective.
Charlie - 06 May 2008 22:28 GMT Skeptic:
I would be more than happy to get the MP3. Use the address below with the obvious fixups. To everyone else, thanks for the input, links, etc. All are helpfull
Thanks, Charlie
drucelake at yahoo dot com
On May 5, 7:51�pm, alv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 5, 7:40 pm, He'sDeadJim <Hesdeadj...@nienspamhotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - By coincidence, I just attended a lecture last night (may 5) in Boston by a Dr. Zeitman (sp) from Harvard Medical about proton beam, sponsored by a prostate cancer support group. He explained that it is unique in that it uses little radiation going in and then maxes power at the target point and stops. The problem is they never know exactly where it stops so in his words, they always "overshoot" the beam to make sure they don't stop short of the target. It was a one hour lecture so I'm just paraphrasing one anecdote, but he emphasized that even though he uses it all the time, and he rates it very effective for most, it is in his estimation no better than IMRT or other standard forms of radiation. His opinion is that proton beam is best for brain tumors and for infants, which the machine is used for 80% of the time. If you really want more info i recorded most of it on a digital recorder and can send it to you as an mp3. He also takes issue with a lot of the claims Loma Linda makes about it...again, even though he uses one in his practice. He rates RP, brachytherapy, IMRT and proton beam all equally effective.
Bob - 21 May 2008 19:08 GMT > Skeptic: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You make BIG assumptions – from what he said – the words you recorded.
You wrote that he said “He also takes issue with a lot of the claims Loma Linda makes about it...again, even though he uses one in his practice. “ … and that “he emphasized that even though he uses it all the time, and he rates it very effective for most, it is in his estimation no better than IMRT or other standard forms of radiation”.
And this is a prime example of where ‘hearsay’ – ‘incomplete knowledge’ – and ‘false assumptions’ (misinformation) STUPIDLY spread and magnify what is false. In doing this blogging – I assume to make yourself ‘feel better’ – you are creating fear – and definitely the wrong information for people who need to know the truth.
If you have the ability to know and comprehend technical matters relating to ‘radiation’ and ‘nuclear science’ – go and study and learn about the VERY major differences between Proton Beam radiation (which is magnetically focused – and fine tuned to point of impact --- soon to be with pencil point accuracy) and Gamma Radiation – “X-Rays’ – and for openers – learn how (1) Gamma Radiation CANNOT really by focused – how it travels equally in EVERY direction – and keeps right on traveling and (2) The damage such Gamma Radiation can and does cause to other tissues and cells in your body – or any animal.
So when by blogging you broadcast to the world – that the treatment is equally effective (in your monkey hear – monkey say lack of brilliance) – you are in one way telling the truth (both forms of radiation CAN be equally effective in CURING prostate cancer – BUT that half truth is a disgusting thing to disseminate online – or anywhere else.
Gamma Radiation does its Prostate Cancer curing by killing the cancer cells. Wonderful. So the happy good doctor can collect his money and dollar investment in the machinery – and can truthfully say – “there goes Joe – I cured his prostate cancer”. What he doesn’t add is that Joe’s a.shole no longer works – he leaks all over the place – and he (may be) developing all manner of other cancers – and if not immediately – he is now certainly at much greater risk of all those cancers. So you see – YES – the Gamma Radiation was equally effective in curing the cancer. The potentially destructive side effects were never mentioned.
On the other hand (I will give you the generalities) – Proton Beams do NOT DIRECTLY kill the cancerous cells. They are equal opportunity proton particles. They CUT the DNA strands in each cell they get to (a thousand times more accurately) in half.
In short order – each exposed cell (like the skin cells on your arms and feet and body) try to replicate – replace themselves. They ‘find they cannot do so promptly. The cancerous cells – by their very nature MUST replicate quickly – so they can SPREAD. When they try and fail – they simply DIE! “Mission Accomplished” to quote our non brilliant leader (you know – the one who cannot properly pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ to save his a.s.
The normal cells exposed to Proton Beams – also try to replicate – and notice they cannot do so. Sooo – they try again the next day, etc. Unlike the cancerous cells – they are not programmed to be in a monumental hurry to reproduce. And when they try again – voila – they do. End result – they never were killed!
Think about that – whoever you are. And think about men diagnosed with prostate cancer – who are in great panic and fear – and realize that by your stupid blog – you are just one of probably so very many who have no idea – that you’ve just sentenced thousands of men to suffer side effects – and likely other cancers – they need never have exposed themselves to – in order to be cured. The try to sleep at night – realizing how much damage your ‘loose lips’ in conjunction with your ‘stupid conclusions’ – are CAUSING.
One other point. You again cleverly write “again, even though he uses one in his practice” gives the impression he actually possesses one of these quarter billion dollar machines in a facility which in total costs about ½ billion dollars”. Sure he does! That’s about as accurate as everything else you’ve written.
If he’s in Boston – he at best is using the one at Harvard – Massachusetts General. Wherever these few systems in they world are – they are not used by ‘A doctor’ – but must be used by Doctors working hand in glove with nuclear physicists – and doing so on a full time regular basis – in order to work properly. If the ‘good doctor’ you quote does so on an ‘occasional basis’ it is NOT him who is doing it. And he makes ZERO DOLLARS sending his patients there – as opposed to raking in $75,000 a pop for using his (probably practice owned) X-Ray system.
Perhaps now you can ‘think’ more clearly and REALIZE why he simply says ‘they are equally effective” – and can say so with a reasonably straight face.
You on the other hand – are one of many ‘dupes’ who are effectively spreading the wrong information. So much for your ‘treasured mp3 recording.
You’re ‘such good guy’ – (ignorant gossip) spreading the wrong word to people in need of knowing the truth before they elect (at their good doctor’s suggestion) to go with an array of damaging and destructive slice and dice – mediaeval – barbaric approaches to their major problems.
Finally smart person: (1) The Loma Linda machine – set up was built in 1995 – has been slightly updated over time – and the organization which built it had never sold and built another one. The Proton Beam machine at Harvard is 2 generations old. The unit built after it –in central China was an improvement. And the newest – most advanced is at the Proton Beam Therapy Institute (Part of The University of Florida – and The Shands Hospital system) in Jacksonville, Florida (see floridaproton.org).
I urge you to remove your dumb statement from the Internet. Thank you.
Surely you’ve heard the phrase ‘free advice stinks’. It applies totally to your advice – conclusions – gossip – and obsessive need to distribute your mp3 recording – for free! Wow.
Bob - 21 May 2008 19:08 GMT On May 6, 10:23 am, SKEPTIC (change to "DUMB RUMOR MONGER") <ribr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 7:51�pm, alv...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You make BIG assumptions – from what he said – the words you recorded.
You wrote that he said “He also takes issue with a lot of the claims Loma Linda makes about it...again, even though he uses one in his practice. “ … and that “he emphasized that even though he uses it all the time, and he rates it very effective for most, it is in his estimation no better than IMRT or other standard forms of radiation”.
And this is a prime example of where ‘hearsay’ – ‘incomplete knowledge’ – and ‘false assumptions’ (misinformation) STUPIDLY spread and magnify what is false. In doing this blogging – I assume to make yourself ‘feel better’ – you are creating fear – and definitely the wrong information for people who need to know the truth.
If you have the ability to know and comprehend technical matters relating to ‘radiation’ and ‘nuclear science’ – go and study and learn about the VERY major differences between Proton Beam radiation (which is magnetically focused – and fine tuned to point of impact --- soon to be with pencil point accuracy) and Gamma Radiation – “X-Rays’ – and for openers – learn how (1) Gamma Radiation CANNOT really by focused – how it travels equally in EVERY direction – and keeps right on traveling and (2) The damage such Gamma Radiation can and does cause to other tissues and cells in your body – or any animal.
So when by blogging you broadcast to the world – that the treatment is equally effective (in your monkey hear – monkey say lack of brilliance) – you are in one way telling the truth (both forms of radiation CAN be equally effective in CURING prostate cancer – BUT that half truth is a disgusting thing to disseminate online – or anywhere else.
Gamma Radiation does its Prostate Cancer curing by killing the cancer cells. Wonderful. So the happy good doctor can collect his money and dollar investment in the machinery – and can truthfully say – “there goes Joe – I cured his prostate cancer”. What he doesn’t add is that Joe’s a.shole no longer works – he leaks all over the place – and he (may be) developing all manner of other cancers – and if not immediately – he is now certainly at much greater risk of all those cancers. So you see – YES – the Gamma Radiation was equally effective in curing the cancer. The potentially destructive side effects were never mentioned.
On the other hand (I will give you the generalities) – Proton Beams do NOT DIRECTLY kill the cancerous cells. They are equal opportunity proton particles. They CUT the DNA strands in each cell they get to (a thousand times more accurately) in half.
In short order – each exposed cell (like the skin cells on your arms and feet and body) try to replicate – replace themselves. They ‘find they cannot do so promptly. The cancerous cells – by their very nature MUST replicate quickly – so they can SPREAD. When they try and fail – they simply DIE! “Mission Accomplished” to quote our non brilliant leader (you know – the one who cannot properly pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ to save his a.s.
The normal cells exposed to Proton Beams – also try to replicate – and notice they cannot do so. Sooo – they try again the next day, etc. Unlike the cancerous cells – they are not programmed to be in a monumental hurry to reproduce. And when they try again – voila – they do. End result – they never were killed!
Think about that – whoever you are. And think about men diagnosed with prostate cancer – who are in great panic and fear – and realize that by your stupid blog – you are just one of probably so very many who have no idea – that you’ve just sentenced thousands of men to suffer side effects – and likely other cancers – they need never have exposed themselves to – in order to be cured. The try to sleep at night – realizing how much damage your ‘loose lips’ in conjunction with your ‘stupid conclusions’ – are CAUSING.
One other point. You again cleverly write “again, even though he uses one in his practice” gives the impression he actually possesses one of these quarter billion dollar machines in a facility which in total costs about ½ billion dollars”. Sure he does! That’s about as accurate as everything else you’ve written.
If he’s in Boston – he at best is using the one at Harvard – Massachusetts General. Wherever these few systems in they world are – they are not used by ‘A doctor’ – but must be used by Doctors working hand in glove with nuclear physicists – and doing so on a full time regular basis – in order to work properly. If the ‘good doctor’ you quote does so on an ‘occasional basis’ it is NOT him who is doing it. And he makes ZERO DOLLARS sending his patients there – as opposed to raking in $75,000 a pop for using his (probably practice owned) X-Ray system.
Perhaps now you can ‘think’ more clearly and REALIZE why he simply says ‘they are equally effective” – and can say so with a reasonably straight face.
You on the other hand – are one of many ‘dupes’ who are effectively spreading the wrong information. So much for your ‘treasured mp3 recording.
You’re ‘such good guy’ – (ignorant gossip) spreading the wrong word to people in need of knowing the truth before they elect (at their good doctor’s suggestion) to go with an array of damaging and destructive slice and dice – mediaeval – barbaric approaches to their major problems.
Finally smart person: (1) The Loma Linda machine – set up was built in 1995 – has been slightly updated over time – and the organization which built it had never sold and built another one. The Proton Beam machine at Harvard is 2 generations old. The unit built after it –in central China was an improvement. And the newest – most advanced is at the Proton Beam Therapy Institute (Part of The University of Florida – and The Shands Hospital system) in Jacksonville, Florida (see floridaproton.org).
I urge you to remove your dumb statement from the Internet. Thank you.
Surely you’ve heard the phrase ‘free advice stinks’. It applies totally to your advice – conclusions – gossip – and obsessive need to distribute your mp3 recording – for free! Wow.
No reply required. I will not look for a follow up. YOU must live with yourself and what you are doing. You and those who listen to your incompetent conclusions.
It takes all sorts.
Larry - 21 May 2008 20:54 GMT Bob,
While you clearly possess a lot of knowledge on this topic, if there's one thing I've learned about PSA, PCa, and treatment options ... there's a lot of controversy and differing opinions out there. Respectfully, if you think that an open information source like an internet newsgroup is not going to contain any heresay ... or subjective opinions ... you really shouldn't read the posts here. Subjectivity is what the medical profession and the internet are all about. I just had 3 different recommendations on whether to have a biopsy or not. PLEASE.
You're correct in asking for substantiation and in asking posters to provide backup studies/documentation to backup claims. But there are going to be inevitable times when someone quotes a medical professional who could be right and could be wrong. If proton beam was the answer for everything and it was so obvious that it was the best choice, believe me ... we would all know it and people wouldn't be having RPs anymore.
LE
> On May 6, 10:23 am, SKEPTIC (change to "DUMB RUMOR MONGER") > <ribr...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > It takes all sorts. Charlie - 24 May 2008 01:35 GMT On May 6, 10:23 am, SKEPTIC (change to "DUMB RUMOR MONGER") <ribr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 7:51�pm, alv...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You make BIG assumptions – from what he said – the words you recorded.
You wrote that he said “He also takes issue with a lot of the claims Loma Linda makes about it...again, even though he uses one in his practice. “ … and that “he emphasized that even though he uses it all the time, and he rates it very effective for most, it is in his estimation no better than IMRT or other standard forms of radiation”.
And this is a prime example of where ‘hearsay’ – ‘incomplete knowledge’ – and ‘false assumptions’ (misinformation) STUPIDLY spread and magnify what is false. In doing this blogging – I assume to make yourself ‘feel better’ – you are creating fear – and definitely the wrong information for people who need to know the truth.
If you have the ability to know and comprehend technical matters relating to ‘radiation’ and ‘nuclear science’ – go and study and learn about the VERY major differences between Proton Beam radiation (which is magnetically focused – and fine tuned to point of impact --- soon to be with pencil point accuracy) and Gamma Radiation – “X-Rays’ – and for openers – learn how (1) Gamma Radiation CANNOT really by focused – how it travels equally in EVERY direction – and keeps right on traveling and (2) The damage such Gamma Radiation can and does cause to other tissues and cells in your body – or any animal.
So when by blogging you broadcast to the world – that the treatment is equally effective (in your monkey hear – monkey say lack of brilliance) – you are in one way telling the truth (both forms of radiation CAN be equally effective in CURING prostate cancer – BUT that half truth is a disgusting thing to disseminate online – or anywhere else.
Gamma Radiation does its Prostate Cancer curing by killing the cancer cells. Wonderful. So the happy good doctor can collect his money and dollar investment in the machinery – and can truthfully say – “there goes Joe – I cured his prostate cancer”. What he doesn’t add is that Joe’s a.shole no longer works – he leaks all over the place – and he (may be) developing all manner of other cancers – and if not immediately – he is now certainly at much greater risk of all those cancers. So you see – YES – the Gamma Radiation was equally effective in curing the cancer. The potentially destructive side effects were never mentioned.
On the other hand (I will give you the generalities) – Proton Beams do NOT DIRECTLY kill the cancerous cells. They are equal opportunity proton particles. They CUT the DNA strands in each cell they get to (a thousand times more accurately) in half.
In short order – each exposed cell (like the skin cells on your arms and feet and body) try to replicate – replace themselves. They ‘find they cannot do so promptly. The cancerous cells – by their very nature MUST replicate quickly – so they can SPREAD. When they try and fail – they simply DIE! “Mission Accomplished” to quote our non brilliant leader (you know – the one who cannot properly pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ to save his a.s.
The normal cells exposed to Proton Beams – also try to replicate – and notice they cannot do so. Sooo – they try again the next day, etc. Unlike the cancerous cells – they are not programmed to be in a monumental hurry to reproduce. And when they try again – voila – they do. End result – they never were killed!
Think about that – whoever you are. And think about men diagnosed with prostate cancer – who are in great panic and fear – and realize that by your stupid blog – you are just one of probably so very many who have no idea – that you’ve just sentenced thousands of men to suffer side effects – and likely other cancers – they need never have exposed themselves to – in order to be cured. The try to sleep at night – realizing how much damage your ‘loose lips’ in conjunction with your ‘stupid conclusions’ – are CAUSING.
One other point. You again cleverly write “again, even though he uses one in his practice” gives the impression he actually possesses one of these quarter billion dollar machines in a facility which in total costs about ½ billion dollars”. Sure he does! That’s about as accurate as everything else you’ve written.
If he’s in Boston – he at best is using the one at Harvard – Massachusetts General. Wherever these few systems in they world are – they are not used by ‘A doctor’ – but must be used by Doctors working hand in glove with nuclear physicists – and doing so on a full time regular basis – in order to work properly. If the ‘good doctor’ you quote does so on an ‘occasional basis’ it is NOT him who is doing it. And he makes ZERO DOLLARS sending his patients there – as opposed to raking in $75,000 a pop for using his (probably practice owned) X-Ray system.
Perhaps now you can ‘think’ more clearly and REALIZE why he simply says ‘they are equally effective” – and can say so with a reasonably straight face.
You on the other hand – are one of many ‘dupes’ who are effectively spreading the wrong information. So much for your ‘treasured mp3 recording.
You’re ‘such good guy’ – (ignorant gossip) spreading the wrong word to people in need of knowing the truth before they elect (at their good doctor’s suggestion) to go with an array of damaging and destructive slice and dice – mediaeval – barbaric approaches to their major problems.
Finally smart person: (1) The Loma Linda machine – set up was built in 1995 – has been slightly updated over time – and the organization which built it had never sold and built another one. The Proton Beam machine at Harvard is 2 generations old. The unit built after it –in central China was an improvement. And the newest – most advanced is at the Proton Beam Therapy Institute (Part of The University of Florida – and The Shands Hospital system) in Jacksonville, Florida (see floridaproton.org).
I urge you to remove your dumb statement from the Internet. Thank you.
Surely you’ve heard the phrase ‘free advice stinks’. It applies totally to your advice – conclusions – gossip – and obsessive need to distribute your mp3 recording – for free! Wow.
No reply required. I will not look for a follow up. YOU must live with yourself and what you are doing. You and those who listen to your incompetent conclusions.
It takes all sorts.
Bob:
As the original poster in this thread, I support your last statement. The rest is a confused, vitrioloic and in itself filled with more innuendo than you ascribe to the gentleman who offerred his recordings. I have listened to them and have thanked him, off group.
All I asked for was input. Clearly you have determined that I am unable to evaluate such material. Clearly as well, you seem to know what no one else does ie that Dr Zeitman does not support proton beam as the "best" treatment because he can't then use his private practice owned investment.
Where is this phantom practice? He would seem to employed as a rad onc at Mass Gen. In my experience, these men are salaried with little vested interest in which treatment works for which patient.
It seems your agenda is showing in attempting to discredit this man so crudely.
Lastly, I am appalled that you suggest that anyone in this group or elsewhere who elected surgery are supporting what you describe as mediaeval – barbaric approaches.
There is no "best" treatment. There is no clear path. It is a difficult decision and one that I and every other poster here wish no one had to make. This decision is based on both what ever data one can collect as well as ones personal feelings and sensitivities and those of his loved ones.
So there I am, asking for inputs and the messenger is being shot.
I will have my robotic surgery a week from Monday. We will just have to disagree as to the barbaric nature of my decision.
Thanks for your input.
Ain't usenet wonderful
C
ron - 06 May 2008 17:17 GMT > Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an > option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIC Gleason 6, PSA 4.2 Charlie...A paper describing the Loma Linda experience can be found at
http://www.jkpix.com/TenYearStudy/Ten%20Year%20Study.pdf
JHU prepared a comment sheet (biased?) on proton therapy and it can be found at
http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/prostate_disorders/JohnsHopkinsPr ostateDisordersHealthAlert_882-1.html or http://tinyurl.com/3wk8a7
The results in the LL paper are not stratified in much detail which makes comparison to other treatment modes somewhat fuzzy. Nonetheless, the recurrence results appear to be (IMO) in the same ball park as other treatment modalities. A few other comments:
These results are from a mix of protons and photons. I'm not sure how far treatment has migrated to pure proton since the paper was written.
Reduced side effects are an anticipated advantage of heavy ion RT, but I am haven't seen studies documenting this improvement.
Loma Linda is working on an updated paper.
An interesting paper discussing the possible problem with neutrons created in the proton process can be found at PMID: 16618572 ...ron
Steve Kramer - 07 May 2008 00:08 GMT > Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an > option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the > essence. Welcome to the club, Charlie.
Very few of the more than 800 visitors to this NG in the last several years have opted for proton treatment as their initial treatment. Four that have are as follows:
cwarman89134@gmail.com CW89134 wborglum@sbcglobaldot.net Desert Denizen keith340@webtv.net Keith Lundy jeffbalfoort@yahoo.com surfdog
I have no links for you, however.
 Signature PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08 Non Illegitimi Carborundum
KimSjerven@gmail.com - 07 May 2008 00:59 GMT > Trying to research Proton Beam Therapy. Just started considering it as an > option to a prostectomy (scheduled for Mid June) so time is of the essence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIC Gleason 6, PSA 4.2 Here is a good site for you with links to other locations: http://www.protonbob.org/proton-treatment-homepage.asp I have an appointment for this Friday in Bloomington, IN and am leaning toward this approach. I currently have surgery scheduled for 6-12. My numbers look similar to yours.
|
|
|