I had no choice when given the treatment for my cancer 4 years ago. Neither was I aware that there was a 'better' type of radiation available. I was put in a clinical trial and that might explain why XRT was used and not IMRT. Before I became the member of this forum, I felt fully satisfied with the given treatment, my recovery and so on but then the more I read, the more I found myself ignorant especially over the issue of IMRT Vs XRT. I even felt a bit upset and had a sense of being 'cheated' by my doctors when people here kept on saying how good IMRT is. Fortunately, in January, I had a chance to share my cancer experience in an international medical symposium in Hong Kong and was able to meet another speaker who had just completed his treatment last December to his stage 4 tonsil cancer. He is an Australian and received the treatment in the same hospital as me. He told me that he didn't get IMRT, either and was so pleased with his recovery. Both of us need not take any water throughout our talk and the audience could hear clearly what we were saying. Apparently, IMRT is not yet the standard form of radiation in our place, for some reasons I am not sure. After the encounter, I don't feel bad about not receiving IMRT anymore because I have won the battle with a weapon considered less effective by some people here. I am not sure of the substantial difference in the quality of life between the 2 types of radiation. I need to travel with a bottle of water with me but that is very common for people to do the same here. Moreover, I usually end up with half of the bottle full when I return home. I need not wake up from my sleep because of dry mouth. Sometimes I really wonder if I were given IMRT, could I recover so well or could I recover even better.

Karen