general question (musing)

if radiation is used to kill any floating cells in the breast, why isn't it
used simply as a global treatment for the found cancer, period...I mean, if
there's a small in situ mass, or a questionable area, why not just zap the
entire breast, given that the protocol is to do that after excision anyway?

I know...I could try to look it up. But I actually have a job, and work,
and...

"fortunata" <pacifist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wZ9Rh.249715$5j1.131438@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> if radiation is used to kill any floating cells in the breast, why isn't
> it used simply as a global treatment for the found cancer, period...I
> mean, if there's a small in situ mass, or a questionable area, why not
> just zap the entire breast, given that the protocol is to do that after
> excision anyway?
>
> I know...I could try to look it up. But I actually have a job, and work,
> and...

Radiation has significant side effects. It can injure the heart and the
ribs. It can induce various types of cancer (although it may take 20-30
years for the cancer to develop and something else may get you in the
meantime, especially if you are my age).

"Sandy L" <hlmssl@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:E6kRh.18775$PL.16135@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net...
> "fortunata" <pacifist@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wZ9Rh.249715$5j1.131438@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> if radiation is used to kill any floating cells in the breast, why isn't
>> it used simply as a global treatment for the found cancer, period...I
>> mean, if there's a small in situ mass, or a questionable area, why not
>> just zap the entire breast, given that the protocol is to do that after
>> excision anyway?
>>
>> I know...I could try to look it up. But I actually have a job, and work,
>> and...
>
> Radiation has significant side effects. It can injure the heart and the
> ribs. It can induce various types of cancer (although it may take 20-30
> years for the cancer to develop and something else may get you in the
> meantime, especially if you are my age).

I suspect that a large dose of radiation would need to be used for a mass,
large enough to kill healthy cells.

I don't know that so don't quote me :-)

Mary
>
>

Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Sandy L" <hlmssl@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:E6kRh.18775$PL.16135@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net...
>> "fortunata" <pacifist@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wZ9Rh.249715$5j1.131438@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> if radiation is used to kill any floating cells in the breast, why isn't
>>> it used simply as a global treatment for the found cancer, period...I
>>> mean, if there's a small in situ mass, or a questionable area, why not
>>> just zap the entire breast, given that the protocol is to do that after
>>> excision anyway?
>>>
>>> I know...I could try to look it up. But I actually have a job, and work,
>>> and...
>> Radiation has significant side effects. It can injure the heart and the
>> ribs. It can induce various types of cancer (although it may take 20-30
>> years for the cancer to develop and something else may get you in the
>> meantime, especially if you are my age).
>
> I suspect that a large dose of radiation would need to be used for a mass,
> large enough to kill healthy cells.
>
> I don't know that so don't quote me :-)
>
> Mary
>>
>
>
That's one way of looking at it.

Here's another way. As I said in another thread, radiotherapy (or
chemotherapy for that matter) doesn't totally destroy a tumour, it
destroys *most* of it. If we are talking about thousands of cells (ie
microscopic particles), the handful remaining will probably get cleaned
up by the immune system. If we are talking about billions (ie a
detectable tumour) then the millions remaining will eventually regrow.

I'm sure this isn't a perfect model for what really happens, but it
gives generally the right idea, and also demonstrates the fundamental
difference between primary cancer and metastatic disease. As long as we
*know* where the cancer is we can remove something like 99.99% of it
with surgery, diminish the tiny fragments remaining even further with
adjuvant therapies, and leave it to the immune system to clean up.

But once it has metastasised we don't know where it is any more, lose
the option of being able to remove the vast majority by surgery, and
have to fall back on systemic therapies that kill no more than 99.00% of
the cells.


Tim