Talk:Particle therapy

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Particle therapy.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

note[edit]

As far as I can tell, "heavy ion" and "light ion" are used interchangeably for ion therapy... Very strange. 70.56.220.95 08:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think there is a consensus. Consider Carbon. It is a light ion, in that it has an atomic number of only 6 (Uranium is heavy at 92). However, it is probably the heaviest ion worth using for therapy (due to a radiobiological effect called overkill). So it is a light and heavy ion. Blondandy (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is old Cyclotron Terminology, and dates back to John Lawrence's work at the Berkeley 184" Cyclotron. Simply: Protons, Deuterons, 3He and 4He are "Light Ions". Since it was initially difficult to fully strip "Heavy Ions", (Lithium and above.), "Light Ions" had higher energies and much higher intensities. (Energy scales closely with Q^2/M in Cyclic Accelerators.) Berkeley's BEVALAC pioneered "Heavy Ion" Bragg-Peak Radiotherapy, which was, and is, very complicated and expensive. "Heavy Ions" for Therapy means Lithium through Argon.69.42.10.95 (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)braggpiqued[reply]

The article needs to be edited since the HIT in Germany is treating patients since Nov. 2009 (as even stated in the article). So it's not two but three centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.233.132 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:So fix it. S B H arris 09:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

The external link to the "Particle Therapy page from Siemens" is no longer working and this is probably due to the fact that Siemens AG has doscontinued their Particle Therapy business, and are now only working on finishing the two remaining projects: ShaPHIH (Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Hospital) and PTZ Marburg.

Perhans (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of carbon facilities[edit]

When listing the disadvantages of carbon (or heavy ions in general) facilities I think it would be appropriate to mention the cost, due to the larger atomic mass and hence the larger magnetic fields required in the magnets.

Perhans (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muon Therapy[edit]

I have added the "by whom" template in the lead section, where "muon therapy" is referred to. This is not mentioned again throughout the article, and no source is cited. SpiralSource (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]