Investment in proton beam therapy for cancer may be premature

Both the US and UK are pouring money into building proton accelerators to treat cancer. They have been described as the world's "most costly medical devices" but in an article published in the British Medical Journal today, journalist Keith Epstein reports that "no clear evidence of better effectiveness exists" and asks whether the investment is premature.

Proton beam treatment is thought to target more precisely than conventional radiation, minimising harm to healthy tissue while reducing side effects and increasing cure rates. It has been shown to be beneficial and cost effective for children with cancer and for some rare brain cancers.

The US has invested millions of dollars in 10 centres, and 19 more are being built. While in the UK, the recently announced that the NHS is to spend up to £250m on two centres despite no appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

But proton beam therapy, especially in the US, is now being marketed as a treatment for prostate cancer where, not only is the benefit unclear but, in some cases, the side effects appear to be no better than conventional radio therapy, reports Epstein.

In fact, signs that proton beam therapy is less cost effective than conventional radiation for prostate cancer have been increasingly evident since 2007, he adds.

Earlier this year, Professor Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania and former adviser to President Obama described proton beam therapy as "crazy medicine and unsustainable public policy."

He said: "If the United States is ever going to control its healthcare costs, we have to demand better evidence of effectiveness and stop handing out taxpayer dollars with no questions asked."

Yet the first randomised controlled trials comparing x rays with proton beams is only just about to begin and won't be completed for seven years.

Harvard Medical School radiation oncologist Anthony Zietman told the BMJ: "We rush into treatments before they are proved" and suggests that, "in some instances, proton therapy might be inferior to existing treatments."

Robert Foote, a radiation oncologist at the Mayo Clinic is also worried that some centres are adopting the proton beam therapy before enough research has been done and, possibly, for the wrong indications.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Proton therapy effective prostate cancer treatment

Jan 05, 2012

Proton therapy, a type of external beam radiation therapy, is a safe and effective treatment for prostate cancer, according to two new studies published in the January issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology•Biology•Physics (Red J ...

Proton therapy lowers chance of later cancers

Sep 22, 2008

Patients who are treated with proton therapy (a specialized type of external beam radiation therapy using protons rather than X-rays to treat cancer) decreases the risk of patients developing a secondary cancer by two-fold, ...

Proton therapy is well-tolerated in prostate cancer patients

Nov 02, 2009

Proton beam therapy can be safely delivered to men with prostate cancer and has minimal urinary and rectal side effects, according to a study presented November 2, 2009, at the American Society for Radiation Oncology's 51st ...

Recommended for you

Study pinpoints microRNA tied to colon cancer tumor growth

14 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have identified microRNAs that may cause colon polyps from turning cancerous. The finding could help physicians provide more specialized, and earlier, treatment before colon cancer ...

Obesity tied to higher cancer risk for CRC survivors

15 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who are overweight or obese when diagnosed appear to face a slightly higher risk for developing a second weight-related cancer, according to research published ...

User comments