Talk:External beam radiotherapy

Tele-therapy?

This seems to be invalid title. It should be named External beam radiotherapy and possibly teletherapy should be a redirect.
Kpjas

Protons/Light Ions?

Are you sure this isn't supposed to be "proton" instead of "photon" throughout the section? I hardly ever hear the word "photon" referenced to particle beams. I'd think they'd be more associated with laser applications. Fd-gunslinger (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention proton radiotherapy or light ion radiotherapy, both of which are variations of external beam RT. They are both becoming more common, and many believe light ions (combined with existing modalities) are the future of radiotherapy. I could slap something together, but I have no free time at the moment. AtomBum 03:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Photon" is correct. The article doesn't say much about how a medical linac works in the first place, and that generates some confusion. It also refers to X-rays as photons, which, while true, creates a little more confusion because it is a more abstract term. The way that a medical linac works (very briefly) is that it accelerates electrons first, taking advantage of their electrical and magnetic properties to push them to very high speeds in a straight line. This is done with both a voltage potential difference and a microwave beam. The electrons gain a large amount of kinetic energy through this process. Then, to produce x-rays, the electrons are directed into a target that stops them abruptly. Some of the electrons' kinetic energy is converted into x-rays, and these x-rays in turn are beamed into the patient. X-rays have no mass. They are pure electromagnetic radiation, just like visible light and radio waves. The term photon applies to a unit of electromagnetic radiation, whether it be visible light, x-rays, radiowaves, etc. --BAW (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cobalt

It would seem appropriate to mention cobalt machines together with Linacs. Cobalt EBRT has far more application on a world-wide basis than betatrons or exotic high LET particles.Jellytussle 23:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The article does mention Co sources in the second paragraph. It could definitely be expanded upon, as it is very common. The layout in that part is a little choppy; there's no reason to separate the radioisotope sources from the machines. Proton therapy is hardly exotic, and there is already a wikipedia page on it, so a link should be provided at the very least. Worldwide, proton therapy is becoming more and more common. Also, there are carbon ion treatment centers in Europe and Japan, and quite a few are in the works (none in the US, our government doesn't chip in for that kind of thing...). The improvements these methods make (in the results I've read) over traditional EBRT warrant at least their mention. AtomBum 20:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there is quite a lot of experience with proton therapy, though it is still limited in use in application, and in terms of number of centres worldwide (27) and total patients treated (~40000). I understand that 6 new proton facilities are being commissioned in the USA. Protons are not strictly speaking high LET particles. An up to date list of worldwide charged particle centres and patient totals is available from the "Particles" newsletter on www.ptog.com. I tried to paste it here but am unable to format. It is revealing. Pions have been abandoned worlwide. There are 2 C ion units in Japan, and 1 in Germany, and no clinical high LET anywhere else.Jellytussle 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Error?

Neutrons

This is not a stub.

I've been bold and removed it. Could have been a request for someone to add more content, I suppose; if it was yours please add some content for it! Stonejag 10:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadrons

I note sbHarris's recent amendment, and the link to the Triumf pion page, which is very old. In fact Triumf stopped using pions a number of years ago after their own research showed them to be of no real benefit e.g. Prostate cancer: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jan 1;43(1):47-55 Glioblastoma: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Feb 1;37(3):491-7.

suggest delete mention of pions and the Triumf link. Jellytussle (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See also comments in the Cobalt section above.Jellytussle (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it would be worthwhile to include a brief discussion of pions as a subject of historical interest, but I agree that we should make clear that they are no longer in clinical use. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone with time could start a History of Radiotherapy page. IT is an interesting subject. Jellytussle (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Need for synergy

The article on radiation therapy has a section on external beam radiotherapy which links to subtopics. That section should be a summary of this article, but there is not much congruence between these two right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Teletherapy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Teletherapy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)