pjmlp a day ago

What matters is that exists, and is another possibility for treatments.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/

  • bonsai_spool 21 hours ago

    I disagree that any new possibility for treatments should be lauded. The theoretical side of things is fine, but many new treatments are far more expensive than existing options without offering improved outcomes.

    This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.

    • pjmlp 18 hours ago

      Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.

      Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

      • bonsai_spool 18 hours ago

        > Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.

        > Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

        There is no way to know whether these people would have been served better by receiving radiation therapy. Your statement is tantamount to believing in prayer.

        • pjmlp 17 hours ago

          I know they are better than not having received anything at all.

somethingsome a day ago

What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?

It can deliver radiations to the brain that will peak at the exact position of the cancer, and reduce irradiation in sane tissues. The 'better' is 'less irradiation to sane tissues' that in turn reduces the risk for new cancers.

Note: I'm not expert on the matter, but I had technical visits to IBA and know several PhDs that work there

  • bonsai_spool 21 hours ago

    > What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?

    I mean exactly that, clinical trials demonstrating that proton therapy is superior to radiation therapy. This is not a question about the physics but about how patients respond (and whether the expense of delivering proton therapy outweighs the expected marginal benefits).

    • somethingsome 21 hours ago

      As a non expert, I can't pronounce myself on the subject, I found this recent study:

      https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/proton...

      But on the subject of discoveries and practical uses, the IBA cyclotrons are also used for other purposes than proton therapy: cleaning exotic fruits from dangerous substances and personalized medicine.

      • bonsai_spool 19 hours ago

        This may be one of the good cases, then. I'm not an expert in cancer but I am a biologist and physician. The head and neck cancer (here) and various pediatric indications get the most attention but it has felt that proton therapy has been seeking an indication for almost 40 years now.

        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

        The study was designed to show non-inferiority, which doesn't preclude their ability to show an improvement. It would be helpful to see other studies before determining that proton therapy is better (or even non-inferior) to radiation therapy. It's certainly much more expensive, which shows up in the study as many subjects being denied insurance coverage.

        Edit: This is now in the weeds, but the per-protocol participants didn't fare better than the intention-to-treat participants, which one might expect since insurance approval lead to dozens of subjects changing treatment arms.