Slashdot Mirror
Hospitals Look to a Nuclear Tool to Fight Cancer
The feed points us to a NYTimes article about hospitals using particle accelerators to treat cancer. While expensive, proponents say that the proton beams generated by the accelerators are more precise than conventional X-ray radiation therapy. This results in fewer side effects and reduced irradiation of surrounding tissue. The technology's critics say that the cost is not justified by a measurable increase in the level of care given to the patients. Nevertheless, this is an excellent example of "pure scientific research" leading to a useful, unrelated technique. From the NYTimes:
"Tumors in or near the eye, for instance, can be eradicated by protons without destroying vision or irradiating the brain. Protons are also valuable for treating tumors in brains, necks and spines, and tumors in children, who are especially sensitive to the side effects of radiation."
possibly, but I'd rather be bombarded with focused protons than barely focused gamma/x rays.
protons have very little penetration power due to their high weight and volume. Normal alpha particle emitters, for example, are blocked simply by the lining of dead skin covering your body. Goggles and standard clothing will protect you from anything short of eating the particles.
Since they are accelerated, I'm guessing they penetrate further, but they will be stopped quicker too (charge, mass, volume, all these will make them easier to stop than high energy photon radiation). Best of all, it's the stopping/slowing of the protons that kills the cells (they hit stuff, break stuff, and stop/slow down), so less energy will be needed since the majority of the high-energy photons would just pass through. The trickiest part would be to determine how many protons and with how much energy.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
As another unrelated side benefit, you can strap it to your back and use it to catch ghosts.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Focused protons would likely give you better superpowers, too. I mean, we all know what gamma rays do, and I, for one, don't want to prance around with green skin and purple short shorts when I'm angry.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Correct me if I am wrong (I am not in the US and haven't had any serious illnesses), but isn't medical insurance cover up to a certain limit of dollar value (usually extremely high), which makes the cost of a treatment irrelevant so long as it is scientifically proven to have a noticeable beneficial effect?
If insurance companies refusing a treatment over cost disgusts and shocks you, you might be interested to know that active government policy in every country with free health care (including those highlighted by Michael Moore in 'Sicko') consider on an ongoing basis as a matter of government policy which treatments that WILL NOT be given to people even if they are proven to cure, on the basis of costs, and the list is typically long. And as this case from the UK demonstrates;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7151328.stm
Does it happen that you have a terminal illness that could be cured by a proven workable drug that is unfortunately not on the government-approved-expenses list? Too bad for you. Do you want to pay for this drug yourself? Well, that sucks, because you are not legally allowed to, in that case you would have to pay for your entire treatment yourself. Of course, you could always travel to a third-world country and have the drug illegally injected, at the risk of losing your house if it's discovered.
It would therefore shock my predictive abilities to the core if any country with a free and universal health care system offered particle accelerator treatments earlier than any country with privately funded health care.
This intended to balance out the general hatred for private medical companies and love for government health care systems with some hard facts and priorities that inevitably are going to be made.
By contrast, accelerated protons deposit their energy almost evenly, at a relatively low rate, until they are slowed to a certain energy, at which point their deceleration rapidly increases, accompanied by a massive increase in linear energy deposition. This leads to the "Bragg Peak", which offers a much, much more accurately targeted beam than is possible with conventional sources. (See this illustration as an example - compare the red line (in this case, C12 ions, but a similar principle) to the green line (an 18MeV photon beam). By carefully tuning the beam energy and orientation this point can be scanned over the tumour volume, giving a very localised dose deposition.
What puzzles me is why this is news - I was under the impression that this concept is well-established, and has been fairly well verified already. Just some fluff to fill up the science and medicine section, maybe? Now if it was about the CERN anti-proton tests, that's certainly something with a more dubious cost/benefit analysis...
* - I say a few assumptions, these are basically the principle ones behind all radiotherapy - that is, that all dose at the end of track structures is created equal and all dose is bad according to the LNT. While these ideas may not be strictly true, it is unlikely for them to be so wrong that it would invalidate the treatment as a whole.
For a nice picture of energy deposition vs. depth see e.g. http://www.gsi.de/forschung/bio/energy_e.html
One can adjust the peak energy deposition's depth by varying the proton's energy. The surrounding tissue gets a much lower dose than in X-Ray irradiations.
Combine the particle accelerator with a PET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography) and you can irradiate a cancer with cubic millimeter resolution.
This is actually not a new, purely academic technique, it is already commercially available, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy
Attention: I'm not a doctor but a physics student :)
One thing: http://www.gsi.de/forschung/bio/energy_e.html is actually about heavy ions (carbon). The curve is not _too_ different for a proton, though.
Personally, who cares how expensive it is. I mean, we're not rich people and we are pretty close to that sarcastic "upper lower middle class" line.. but watching my wife go through chemo and surgery (no radiation, thank God) hurt me more than I can ever explain. If there was a way to make sure that radiation was a little "cleaner" and crisp around the edges, I'd say go for it. Chemo and surgery are hell enough.
Plus, x-rays are so last century. Everyone knows the new thing is protons.
Insurance companies frequently follow Medicare's lead, so we may find in a few years that we're paying gobs of money for proton beam treatments that do not offer better outcomes than alternatives. Once it gains acceptance as a standard treatment for cancers on which it offers no better outcome, we'll be paying a huge collective sum in taxes and insurance rates with no discernable benefit.
They do it for everything.
They consider it OK to treat Eczema by splating children with a bucket of hydrocortisone twice a day and drowning them in Claritine despite the fact that the result is nil and the treatment drags on for decades. After all it is cheaper per-day and per-dose than Pimercrolimus or Advantan. They miss a crucial difference - the latter can actually put eczema under control and reduce it to a point where treatment is unnecessary most of the time.
Same for allergies - there is practically no way in hell to get them to approve gammaglobulinisation therapy.
Same for vaccines - they use "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others
approach and vaccinate themselves against chickenpox and leave children who are in high risk groups like astma and eczema sufferers to fend for themselves (and die from secondary infections). After all, vaccination is expensive, isn't it.Same for cancer. Treat 10 people without any one of them getting improved survival rates as long as "it improves their quality of life", but do not use treatment that will actually give one of out 10 a chance to survive because it is expensive. Do not pay for herceptine because it is expensive, use cheap stuff regardless of the fact that as a result UK has cancer survival rates of a 3rd world country (worse than the whole of the EU).
And so on.
Sorry. NHS treatment selection logic is flawed by design. It is based on fake happy commie concepts of fairness which are misplaced here. The main goal of medicine is to try to cure the patient. If you have the choice of using a medication that has a chance of curing even one more patient and medication that will cure even one less the "cost" option is simply no longer part of the equation. It is there only if the treatments are equivalent.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/