Although the story mentions the high upfront cost of proton therapy, it does not describe the cost of treatment compared to other alternatives. The story points out that there have been no controlled treatment trials for proton therapy in prostate cancer–increasingly the targeted use–so there really are no good data on benefits. Since the technology is relatively new there are probably no good long-term survival estimates even from case series. The story mentions side effects of proton therapy, such as incontinence and sexual side effects in men with prostate cancer, and explains that they may be more common than reported in studies. The story mentions that there is a lack of randomized trials comparing proton therapy to conventional radiation. The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering. However, the article doesn’t indicate that many of the 186,320 new prostate cancer cases are early-stage for which the benefit of any treatment–let alone proton beam–remains uncertain. The story quotes multiple experts who provide meaningful perspectives on the value of proton therapy. The story mentions conventional radiation and surgery as the alternatives to proton therapy. The story accurately describes the limited availability of proton therapy. The story accurately describes the novelty of proton therapy. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
The promise of proton-beam therapy