Medical: Tomography vs. Conventional Radiation

[Dick]

There is some new technology developing in cancer radiation treatment called Tomography. As I understand it, the process includes taking a three dimensional scan of the affected area and then uses that as input to more accurately focus the radiation beam to minimize the effect on otherwise healthy cells.

 

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge about this process?

[steveknapp]

Dick, you OK?

[drzep]

That's generally the idea, Dick. The primary differences are that the radiation 'beam' is visually guided and it can also be focused on a smaller volume of tissue. This has the benefit of sparing normal, surrounding tissue and by using higher energy, reducing total treatment times.

 

There is a great deal that goes into deciding which option is superior; the pros and cons of tomographic radiotherapy verses traditional treatment are going to be not only tumor-specific, but to some extant, patient specific. As an example, a small, rapidly growing brain tumor or a metastatic tumor in the brain would be best suited to tomographic radiotherapy. On the flip side, a large ovarian tumor that has likely spread to the abdominal cavity is better treated with traditional radiation. One is focused, high-intensity energy to cells that are going to be very sensitive to radiation, whereas the latter is a lower energy that covers a larger area and over a longer period of time to ensure that the more slowly diving cells will see some radiation.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

[Dick]

Hi Steve,

Yeah, I'm ok but my wife, Debbie, suffered a bit of a setback with her 8 year struggle against breast cancer. I'm in the process of improving my knowledge on the subject so we can make some considered decisions. The University of Wisconsin has been instrumental in developing this technology and its availability is rather limited at this time. Fortunately it is available within my health care network and I am looking at it as an alternative to her current therapy.

 

Also, thanks drzep for the explanation on the appropriate application of the technology.

[UberXY]

As an example, a small, rapidly growing brain tumor or a metastatic tumor in the brain would be best suited to tomographic radiotherapy.

 

Wouldn't want one to look at Gamma Knife for tumors in the head?

[eddd]

There is some new technology developing in cancer radiation treatment called Tomography. As I understand it, the process includes taking a three dimensional scan of the affected area and then uses that as input to more accurately focus the radiation beam to minimize the effect on otherwise healthy cells.

 

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge about this process?

 

I have to say I wish I didn't have any experience with it, but...

 

This was the procedure that was used on me. If available it is the way to go, IMHO. Much better targeting of the areas that need the radiation. Less of a shotgun approach.

 

Feel free to PM me if you'd like more information or a little support.

[LandonBlueRT]

From what I have read about TomoTherapy it is simply the latest high technology method of administering radiation therapy. The patient receives a CAT scan before each treatment to determine exact location and size of tumor. Then patient is placed in the TomoTherapy machine which somewhat resembles an MRI machine. The machine administers a 360-degree treatment which is not possible using conventional method. If the Cat scan shows a reduction in size of the tumor the amount of radiation is adjusted accordingly. Again, from what I have read about the therapy it appears to be 'cutting edge' technology. I would choose it in a heart-beat over the traditional method. I might add however, that I am not unbiased. I have a deceased wife whose death was hastened by an over dose of radiation using the traditional method.

[drzep]

Generally yeah, gamma knife is superior for lots of intracranial masses, but that wasn't mentioned in the OP. Presumably not an option here. I was just trying to give an example and brain masses are often good candidates.

[awagnon]

Are you talking about IMRT or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy? This technique uses a CT scan to map the 3D mass of the tumor. This information is fed into the radiation therapy machine (usually a linear accelerator) which controls the beam so most of the radiation energy is delivered to the tumor, thus sparing surrounding normal tissue. Another technique is called 3D conformational radiation therapy, but probably isn't as sophisticated. With IMRT, the intensity of the radiation beam is modulated as well as the focal point.

 

The decision to use conventional radiation therapy, vs 3D conformational, vs IMRT, vs "gamma knife" depends on the location of the tumor or tumors, the size, the sensitivity of the tumor and surrounding tissues.

 

Talk with your wife's medical oncologist or consult a radiation oncologist for what is best in your situation.

[Dick]

Are you talking about IMRT....

 

In a short phrase, I don't know. But now, I can research if IMRT and Tomography are the same thing. Thank you for the info.

 

Talk with your wife's medical oncologist or consult a radiation oncologist.

 

To illustrate my lack of knowledge on this subject, I didn't know there was a difference in the specialty of practice.

[steveknapp]

Dick, I can't bring much advice other than to find the best docs you can, and get at least two of their opinions. I know too many friends who saw one doc and got bad advice.

 

You're about equal distant from Madison and Mayo, right?

 

Just a thought that popped into my head, was thinking that we weren't too far from Rochester last time we saw each other.

 

If Chicago is an option, let me know I can see what I can find as far as referrals.

[Dick]

Thanks Steve,

 

Right now we are awaiting the results of the biopsy. Once we know what we are dealing with in, terms of specific types, I will be looking at alternatives/specializations. Mayo is certainly on the short list.