A number of us here have had IMRT and have decent salivary function return - and we didn't have amofostine either. Some tried it and couldn't tolerate it. In some persons the reaction was worse than chemo. Put it out there, you'll see.

I knew there was another PBT site- thanks for reminding me. That price is actually cheap however, my total bills for IMRT at UCSF was $300,000.00 (which my HMO paid 100%). Actually, most of the devices that end up treating oral cancer started with prostate cancer research, including IMRT. The accuracy and tissue preservation issues are very similar. It's one end or the other, lol.

I think that we are all on the same page with QOL issues - that is precisiely why I chose IMRT (not to mention that my tumor was well differentiated and I was a perfect candidate). My doctors were also quite concerned about salivary function/preservation and have been conducting NCI/NCCN clinical trials in that area for years.

I have been in regulatory affairs for radiological devices for over 25 years so my perspective is a little different than the average person or doctor. I'm the guy who has to reign in the marketing BS so these things can get cleared to market by the FDA.

There aren't 2 sides to this - I am merely pointing out that their 510(k) submission states that they are "substantially equivalent" to the predicate device. It's just another mousetrap and they all catch mice.

I am not challenging anyones decision for treatment and the Tomotherapy device sounds fine to me. All RO's specializing in IMRT had better be doing as much gland preservation as possible or they are missing the point - it was developed for precisely that reason. My point is to not discourage people who have had "regular" IMRT.

There is always going to be improvements in the technology.

The most important thing is that you have a high degree of confidence in your medical team.

ps, we don't like to mention specific doctors names on the site.