16
Benefits, costs weigh on proton therapy
A cyclotron at the Roberts Proton Therapy Center at the University of Pennsylvania
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
CORRECTION: The original version of this story misstated the number of proton therapy centers in the United States. There are seven, with more on the way. The correct number has been inserted in the text below.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: I know it feels like the health-care discussion has been going on for months. And sure, it has. But today the Senate really got down to it. As debate on the Senate's final bill got started this morning, majority leader Harry Reid said he and his colleagues would be working weekends to wrap things up as quickly as possible.
So far a lot of the attention has been on health insurance, how health care is paid for. Far less work is being done on containing those costs. Costs that continue to rise in part because newer treatments and medicines tend to be pricier than existing ones are. And yet they don't always produce better results.
Today, as part of "The Cure," our ongoing coverage of the health-care overhaul, one of the thorniest questions in the whole debate: How to balance innovation and cost control? Joel Rose went to the University of Pennsylvania to check out a cutting-edge cancer therapy.
JOEL ROSE: In the basement of Penn's new proton therapy center, facility manager Eric Backes shows me a big, round metal object that looks like a small submarine. He nearly has to shout to be heard over the fans keeping it cool.
ERIC Backes: It's basically a 220-ton magnet. The cyclotron spins the protons around and shoots them out through the beam line.
The cyclotron creates a beam that's more precise than other forms of radiation, so doctors can direct it exactly where it's needed.
STEPHEN Hahn: If you're able to give a higher dose of treatment and have less side effects, that's a great win-win situation.
Stephen Hahn is chair of radiation oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. He says conventional radiation can badly damage the healthy tissue around tumors. Hahn hopes proton therapy will help treat cancers where tumors are close to vital organs.
Hahn: The physics of protons are undeniable. If protons were the same price for treating a patient as regular radiation, we would not be having this discussion.
But the price is not the same. Proton therapy centers are expensive: this one cost $140 million. And the treatment typically costs 50 percent more than conventional radiation. That contributes to higher medical bills and indirectly, to higher insurance premiums for the rest of us.
BOB Marckini: I got mine. I received my treatment. And I'm proof positive that it works. That you don't have to give up your sexual function or your urinary function.
This is Bob Marckini -- A.K.A. Proton Bob. He was treated for prostate cancer nine years ago, without any of the nasty side effects that can accompany surgery or radiation. Since then, he's become somewhat of an evangelist for proton therapy. He started a volunteer organization of men who've had the treatment for prostate cancer. It has more than 4,000 members.
Marckini: At any one given day, one of our members, or two or three or four, are standing up in front of a group some place giving a presentation on treatment options, and in particular, proton therapy. That is causing an increase in demand, and that delights me.
That demand hasn't gone unnoticed by hospitals. There are seven proton therapy centers in the U.S., with more on the way. Hospitals see proton therapy as a way to distinguish themselves regionally and nationally by treating cancers others hospitals can't. But these facilities take an enormous investment, and that means pressure to generate income.
Anthony Zietman is an oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
ANTHONY Zietman: The best way to do that is to treat as many patients as you possibly can. So from a business perspective, it makes great sense to treat prostate-cancer patients.
Even if those patients don't need it. Zietman says many prostate cancers are slow growing, and don't require treatment at all. For those that do, Zietman says there's still no clinical evidence that protons are a big improvement over cheaper alternatives.
Zietman: That's the reason why University of Pennsylvania and Mass General are trying to do a randomized trial comparing one treatment with another. At least we'll be able to quantify if proton beam is superior in prostate cancer, and by how much.
The University of Pennsylvania's Stephen Hahn is convinced that proton therapy will prove indispensable for treating certain childhood cancers, and head, neck and lung cancers.
Hahn: If we can define the patients where proton therapy really does benefit them, then I would say as a society we have to come up with the money to do this, because it's the best thing for cancer patients.
Just maybe not all cancer patients. But once you're spent more than $100 million on a proton therapy center, it can be awfully hard to say no.
In Philadelphia, I'm Joel Rose for Marketplace.
Pages
Proton therapy should really be widely known to cancer patients throught the United States. Maybe if someone had the decency to make a foundation that makes people donate money to build a cyclotron, then there will be more people getting cured because there will be more hospitals to go to. This new innovation of treating cancer is better than the traditional ways to treat cancer tumors. We really need to work on that in the near future. But sadly, they cost around $160 million, so some people just think that is a little far-fetched, but organizations should be set up so we can donate to make new ones.
It would do so much for the cancerous United States.
To Alan Atsilver - thanks very much for your clarification. How does the resolution of PBT compare with X-ray treatments such as "intensity modulated radiation therapy" (IMRT)? More specifically, what, exactly, is the alleged advantage of PT over other treatments? What does "more precise" mean in the statement "The cyclotron creates a beam that's more precise than other forms of radiation, so doctors can direct it exactly where it's needed."? To Glenn Tonnesen: I would appreciate a detailed explanation or references concerning your statement: "Not one single radiation oncologist in my experience believes that protons will be able to demonstrate a survival advantage, in PROSTATE cancer, over modern intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The details are too complicated to go into, in this brief format, but it�s a fact. The side effects of modern radiation therapy are already minimal. Protons can�t improve on that, either."
There are in fact 7 US proton centers in operation and UPenn will be the 8th.
Currently operating:
- Loma Linda's James M. Slater, M.D. Proton Treatment and Research Center
- MGH's Francis H. Burr Proton Center
- Midwest Proton Radiotherapy Institute in Bloomington, IN
- MD Anderson's Proton Center
- The University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville
- The ProCure site in Oklahoma City
AND
- UC Davis proton facility for ocular tumors (only)
@Mitchell Hirsch
Before you go too far down that path, you should know that proton beam therapy is NOT a focal therapy. The beam is guided to a scattering device that makes some spatial adjustments, but the resolution is very poor. While it is true that you CAN focus proton beams very precisely, the beams used in PBT are NOT focussed very precisely, raster-scanning your particular tumor.
Hitachi has recently gotten FDA approval for their spot-scanning PBT technology, but they are the exception, not the rule.
PBT is not focal therapy. Think about that.
Good luck to you with your PC.
As one who was recently diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer I took a great interest in this story as part of my extensive research on treatment methods and the socio-politics associated with this disease. Having a Ph.D. in physics enables me to assess and compare therapies. One of the statements was that if not for the relative cost there would be no need for discussion - protons win, beyond question. Protons are charged; X-ray photons are not. It follows that protons can be far more precisely focussed.
Spatial precision is essential for minimizing side effects in treating prostate cancer since the spacing between the prostate and other vital tissues - such as nerves which play an essential role in erection - is no more than 2 millimeters. Focal therapies for prostate cancer treatment (also including cryotherapy and focussed ultrasound) have received short shrift, in part because of an old hypothesis (now hardened into a dogma) that prostate cancer is multi-focal (occurring in many locations simultaneously.) There is a growing body of evidence that this hypothesis is false - many instances of prostate cancer - including mine so far - are localized, making focal therapies deserving of widespread serious consideration.
As to th ecost of proton therapy, ttwo comments. First, every treatment was once new and subjected to harsh negative assessments. Second, how are we to put $140 million dollars into perspective? A number by itself is meaningless without a comparison to another number. Takng inflation into account, what was the initial cost of IMRT radiation machines, cyberknife, and the DaVinci surgical robot?
Kai, I was delighted to see your accurate assessment about the health care debate thus far in your second introduction paragraph to this story, namely that most of the attention thus far has been paid to the insurance coverage issues and less work has been done on containing the costs.
As you likely know, 60 minutes recently had (in my opinion) an excellent segment about the costs of end-of-life care in this country. As long as we Americans feel that "gramma should live forever," we need to stop complaining about those costs and merely continue to pay. As long as "defensive medicine" remains alive and well in our litigious society, we need to accept and continue to pay for duplicative and medically unnecessary testing. As long as we remain fascinated by technology (the science of medicine) and place the art of medicine at a distant second place, then we need to accept the fact that costs will continue to increase, because the population base will want to have that technology utilized on them - and so much more is in the pipeline in addition to the proton beam therapy.
Ironically, those listeners who seem to put all their eggs in the prevention "basket," apparently fail to see the resultant increase in the common cancers (breast and prostate) for surely the longer we live, the more likely cancer will be an issue in our lives - not to mention the improving the ability to find cancer at its very early and assymptomatic stages.
1. Let medicine police its own profession, it's time to stop law school graduates from doing it.
2. Accept that gramma is going to die and don't break any bank in trying to prevent this natural end to life.
3. Put the breaks on the development new technology - heck, we don't even know how to best utilize what we already have!
4. Bring back the art of medicine and somehow enhance the status of the Family Doctor, as good basic and preventative care with easy access to that care is currently on a fatal nosedive.
Before health reform becomes a reality, there will be twice or three times the number of proton radiation therapy centers to be grandfathered in to the "system." In that same period, 4 years, another 10 million will lose their insurance. Losing health insurance will mean people will forego screening and diagnostic care and treatable cancers will progress to terminal. Wouldn't we be better off as a nation to focus on getting people screened and diagnosed than spreading poorly evaluated wiz-bang expensive technology. When your incentives are based on who profits, the winner is always technology.
UPenn modeled its center after visiting The Proton Therapy Institute (Shands) in Jacksonville FL.(www.floridaproton.com)St Judes is paying for 15 children to go there for brain tumor therapy. CHeck it out. Our 21 yr son was just treated there for inoperable brain tumor near viatl areas. Proton Institue deserves some marketing as the model and mission of all staff is a class act. They have more experience with brain tumors.
Thank you
Pages
