why is clinical trial superior to the regular treatment.
Good question. When a treatment is new, there are many questions about
oncological control, toxicity, and patient selection. in a clinical trial, patients are very closely monitored with examinations and questionnaires. They only allow patients with certain characteristics, and patients are treated according to strict guidelines. Importantly, the patient gets a written document explaining the known risks, and he must acknowledge them before the treatment. The protocol must be approved by an Independent Review Board (IRB) before it can start. As opposed to those very strict treatment and ethical protocols, "regular treatment" is at the doctor's discretion, and the doctor may or may not fully explain the risks.
In my research and conversations it does seem like there may be worse side effects with SBRT.
Quite the opposite. Look at the link in my signature - "SBRT 7-yr QOL results" You have to be careful about
"research" on the internet - much of it is pure garbage or hopelessly outdated. The early outcomes of Dr King's high risk trial have shown very low toxicity:/pcnrv.blogspot.com/2017/03/sbrt-for-high-risk-prostate-cancer.html
Allen - not an MD
•PSA=7.3, prostate volume=55cc, 8/17 cores G6 5-35% involvement
•SBRT 9 yr onc. results
•SBRT 7 yr QOL results
•treated 10/2010 at age 57 at UCLA,PSA now: 0.1,no lasting urinary, rectal or sexual SEsmy PC blog