by
Keri Stephens, Contributing Reporter | March 04, 2026
Loo highlights a recent Lancet phase III trial led by Dr. Steven Frank at MD Anderson Cancer Center, showing five-year survival of 91% with proton therapy versus 81% for conventional radiation, and fewer long-term side effects in head and neck cancer patients. The key distinction, he notes, is how the treatment delivers radiation: unlike X-rays, which pass through tissue and affect everything along the path, protons stop at a specific depth, sparing surrounding healthy tissue.
Loo says this is especially critical for children, who “are particularly susceptible to the collateral effects of radiotherapy because their tissues are growing.” Any scenario where incidental doses reach surrounding tissue can have lasting effects, he adds.
Ad Statistics
Times Displayed: 4950
Times Visited: 14 Brand-New FDA-cleared Advanced Ultrasound Medical Device available for sale or lease to Wound Care Centers or any other Medical Facilities.The Arobella 1000D is designed for non-contact or debridement ultrasound wound healing therapy, or any other wounds
Dr. Benjamin Durkee, medical director of the University of Wisconsin (UW) Health Proton Therapy Program at Eastpark Medical Center, notes that for select patients — especially children — investing in tissue-sparing technology is justified.
Not that proton therapy replaces conventional radiation. “Ninety-nine percent of our cancer patients are treated with X-rays, and that works very well,” Durkee says.
Dr. Shannon MacDonald, senior medical director at Southwest Florida Proton in Estero, highlights the importance of quality of life. With patients living longer, minimizing long-term side effects — particularly for younger patients — has become a critical measure of success. “Proton therapy’s ability to spare healthy tissues and organs allows patients to live a better life after cancer treatment,” she says.
That benefit, however, comes at a steep cost, Loo cautions. Proton machines are larger and more expensive than conventional radiotherapy equipment, and construction costs push the price even higher. By contrast, traditional radiotherapy is highly cost-effective, accounting for roughly 3% of total cancer care costs, while cancer drugs can approach 20%. “People don’t realize that,” Loo says. “Radiotherapy is a really tiny slice of the pie.”
The U.S. houses roughly 45 proton centers, leaving many patients more than a four-hour drive away. “Even here in the heart of Silicon Valley, it used to be an eight-hour trip to the nearest proton center — until now,” Loo adds.
