cyberknife success rate

Yes, You are a perfect candidate

You are well within the guidelines for SBRT (Cyberknife, SHARP). It is now frequently being used (with HT) to treat Gleason 9 cases that surgery is unlikely to cure. There are many articles for you to read over. Here is one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160418145458.htm

 

Please google " Katz SBRT" and "Zelefsky SHARP" to find more recent results about this impressive treatment for prostate cancer.

 

 

Is your case contained or localized?

I am not sure if your high PSA justifies a CK treatment if your intent is cure. In fact the value (PSA) makes your case suspicious in being contained. Can you provide details on the judgment that took you to ascertain the scores described above?

CK has high rates for cure when cancer is whole within the gland, independently of the type of Gleason rate. Any cancerous cells in the gland are supposed to die.

In the past, CK treatments were refused in high Gleason scores (7, 8 and 9) because these cases typically were/are associated with existing extracapsular extensions/metastases, therefore turning the case none contained and less probable for success. Gleason 7 (and some higher scores) are now being accepted in CK treatments because of the better ways in locating the cancer (state-of-art image exams) and for the benefits CK provide in both, shorter periods of administration and higher efficacy of hyperfractionate modality. The data used to justify the successful rates of CK today were most collected from cases scrutinized, with high points for being contained (since the introduction of CK in PCa treatments). It is unfair, therefore, to compare the results against other modalities of treatment if both data are not all from similar contained cases. In such a situation the only modality proven to pair CK results in terms of outcomes is the HRBT which is also used in contained cases, but the former is invasive where CK is non-invasive.

SBRT is not CK (in naming) but it involves the same principles of CK radiation. The difference is the way the machine delivers the ionizing rays. SBRT systems involve high-dose radiation beams entering the body through various angles and intersecting at the desired target. This would be friendlier (lesser Gy) for the tissues it crossed before and after the target. In fact it equals to IMRT fractionated doses but provides lesser total level of Gy at the end of the treatment.

In any case, radiation therapies are not a walk-in-the-park. It involves risks and side effects that should be introduced to the patient. You may need to research more before making a final decision.

Best wishes and luck in your journey.

VGama

Thanks Old Salt for the clarification

In my above post I was trying to inform the many that when talking about CK one should in fact use  the term SBRT because of the various machines using the same method in delivering radiation, all providing similar results. CK is just one of them delivering hyperfractionation doses, which has been found as the reason for the good results. SBRT manages to acumulate the energy of various beams into a single spot in one go (similar to High dose Brachytherapy). IMRT would require a number of fractions for the same accumulated dose.

When comparing treatments there is the tendency in laying down outcomes based on results in terms of the length of the remission period (cure), and in this regard high dose RT aplyed at once seems to have better effect (assurance in killing the cancerous cells). Surely, this occurs at the cells in the line of the rays. Neigboring tissues would not be affected so that cancer at the areas off the rays (out of the field of attack) would progress in living and spreading.

Best

VG

hopeful and optimistic said:

Additonal diagnostic test

......to hellp determine if the cancer is within the prostate

T3 MRI

This is an MRI scan for prostate cancer that is very effective in indicating if there is any nodule involvement, if there is involvement in one or two lobes, will show size of prostate, may show evidence of extracapular extension, will stage the disease. An MRI with the 3.0 Tesla magnet, is the gold standard. There are certain major hospitals that have MRI machines with a 3.0 Tesla magnet. 

In my layman’s opinion it is advisable to have such a test before any treatment. If the cancer is outside the prostate you may wish to reconsider a treatment decision.

Basically the MRI provides finer resolution than the bone and cat scans, and is more effective in determining if the cancer is outside the prostate.

Can you explain how to look

Can you explain how to look for hospitals that have these specialized MRI equipment? Thanks”