for those who have not yet had radiation therapy

[Lani]

this article discusses several advantages that may be associated with a technique called IMRT (not a different machine, just different software which is able to contour the beams better, giving better treatment to the areas that need it and avoiding structures/areas that don't need the therapy which you'd rather not expose to so much radiation--this technique might not be done everywhere (and not so much for breast ca --seems to be used for prostate and head and neck cancer, now perhaps moving into the treatment for breast cancer) As with all info I post, it is just ammunition to allow you to ask questions--I have NO IDEA as to how many centers offer this, doubt it has been done for bc long enough to have 10 and 15 year follow-up...just reporting what I read for food for thought

If this is hardly available or clinical trials are only accruing, I apologize early for presenting you with an alternative too far away/at the edge of the envelope

[kcherub]

Hey, Lani!

I did ask about it before I started radiation, and she said she would look at my initial CT scan (that they did in the office), and let me know if I was a candidate. I am not 100% sure what the criteria is, but she ended up saying that I would do better with the traditional method. I think there might be more severe skin reactions with IMRT. I will ask her when I have my follow up in April, and find this post and tell you all what she said.

Take care,

[Lani]

I forgot to post the link which showed LESS skin reactions with IMRT:
http://breastcancersource.com/breast..._32455___.aspx

[AlaskaAngel]

As one of those who seems to have acquired the title of "oldtimer" here (for better or otherwise!) I hope to provide some info from my 5-year slog through cancer treatment. I hope other oldtimers stick around for the same reason.

I offer some info here but haven't done recent research on it. In 2002 when I had rads, IMRT was just getting rolling and in fact I had it at a brand new cancer center in California. Since then it has gone through some improvements, partly I think having to do with the variation of radiation delivered to the target area and scatter elsewhere due to breathing during actual delivery of the radiation.

Since it has been continuously evaluated and hopefully improved, it is probably better than when I received it. (I did get radiation necrosis at the base of the breast.)

The cancer center in Seattle where I was treated with surgery was not offering IMRT when I had rads, but later on offered a more sophisticated version (and the initials used were similar to IMRT but one letter different, and the exact name escapes me at present). In looking today to see what they offer now, it has yet another name, as this is current info provided from that site:

"According to the National Cancer Institute, PBRT is available at only a few facilities in the United States. In fact, only about 20 proton therapy centers have opened around the world."

On the negative side of the argument, I found a discussion that indicated that scatter with IMRT at that time was greater with IMRT than with conventional rads, and if I remember correctly (which... I might not... as it has been a while... ) also that the total dose was greater with IMRT. This is the link I copied at the time for that info, and the link no longer works. I don't know if I can find the info again elsewhere, but it was provided by a "good" source as you can see:

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/ra...rts2002/g3.htm

The way it was done when I had IMRT was one received IMRT for the first 5 weeks and then had a week of conventional rads for the boost.

Anyway, one might try the newest name also when looking for this type of therapy.

AlaskaAngel

P.S. I still think I'd want to look into brachytherapy, myself!

P.P.S. this is the somewhat cryptic note I had written to myself attached to the link:

Rads - IMRT doubling of radiation-induced cancer
<O</O

[AlaskaAngel]

Here is more recent discussion about the question I mentioned. I don't know whether the source has a bias of any kind:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v582571425m75278/