Pat,

Minnie's right -- while IMRT (which is a more recent development than XRT) has made some real advances in treatment of certain types of tumors and sparing healthy tissue, it hasn't made XRT obsolete for all cases. I had XRT 17 years ago, when IMRT wasn't even around, but based on my pathology reports I suspect that my doctors might still be recommending XRT for that kind of tumor today because it was poorly differentiated (i.e., didn't provide a good, defined, target to aim at). Also, because IMRT involves highly precise targeting, you want the treatment to be directed by someone who is very experienced with that technology -- having the most advanced equipment doesn't, by itself, guarantee the best results.

During a recent followup visit with my radiation oncologist, who is at one of the very large cancer units, I asked him about his use of IMRT vs. XRT today. He said IMRT has proven to be extremely useful and is appropriate in a high percentage of cases, but it hasn't eliminated the need for XRT in some instances. The point is to use the best possible set of tools for the particular case at hand.

Cathy