> Cancer treatment goes back to particle physics

Are you speaking about proton therapy? I don’t think there’s any evidence that works better than alternatives

somethingsome an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> 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).

▲

pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

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

	▲	bonsai_spool 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

onetokeoverthe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]