Liver cancer

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  slane 1 year, 9 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
Author Posts   
Author Posts
February 4, 2016 at 4:38 am  #1272848    

slane

Hello,
My mom was diagnosed with a large heterogeneous mass within the right hepatitic lobe measuring 14.9 cm.
Surgery isn’t possible because of the way the tumor is located. Radio embolization isn’t an option either because the radiation might go into lungs.
We are considering stariostatic radio-surgery. However I’m worried about the side affects. How much damage can that do to the skin and healthy tissues?
Also, would a proton therapy be a better option and less harmful? Trying to weight everything out since there are not too many options for my mom due to the nature of the tumor.

Thank you for your insites.

February 4, 2016 at 4:37 pm  #1272854    
catdander forum moderator
catdander forum moderator

Hi slane,

I’m very sorry your mom is dealing with liver cancer. We don’t have specific info about radiating the liver though there is a bit of info on the subject that states “lung and other common cancers” of which liver would certainly be one.
Dr. West had this to say, “Jim raised the right points here. Proton beam radiation is unquestionably more expensive, but it’s not clearly better than conventional and still quite advanced radiation techniques like IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) for lung cancer and most other common cancers. The challenge is that it is marketed very aggressively because the centers cost so much that the people need to recoup their $200M investments, which you can’t do if you limit yourself to the few clinical situations in which proton beam RT is actually a clearly superior choice. So you market the hell out of it, provide vague innuendos that newer and more expensive is better, and take advantage of the fact that people are inclined to believe that more expensive must be superior. You can certainly use some dizzying physics theories to provide a plausible smokescreen in the absence of actual evidence it’s better.
It’s possible that additional studies will ultimately demonstrate that proton beam radiation is superior for lung cancer and other common cancers, but not necessarily. A study in prostate cancer showed it was clearly NOT more effective and was associated with worse side effects than more readily available IMRT, perhaps because the more sophisticated software for more mature radiation platforms allows better tailoring of the radiation field than most current proton centers, which have more rudimentary software to guide the process.
This isn’t sour grapes, by the way. Our own center was approached as the first choice place for a proton beam facility by a private group wanting to build in Seattle,…cont’d

February 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm  #1272855    
catdander forum moderator
catdander forum moderator

continued from previous post…”wanting to build in Seattle, but our radiation oncologists saw that the cost couldn’t be justified by the limited group of patients best served by protons. They concluded you would need to market it to people beyond its demonstrated place, and that’s exactly what’s happening.” http://cancergrace.org/topic/radiation-vs-proton-radiation

Interestingly enough just today there’s a new video posted about trials including testing if proton therapy is less harmful than others. I’ve not viewed it yet but read a bit of transcript, http://cancergrace.org/lung/tag/proton-beam-radiation-therapy/

I hope this helps a bit. Best of luck to your mom.
Janine

February 4, 2016 at 7:13 pm  #1272862    

slane

Thank you so much for a prompt and detailed reply.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.