Sorry, I think there has been made a mistake. I did not have the intention to a question.

You're using radiation to burn away cancer cells.  I think the question answers itself, when you think about the consequences to the patient regardless of whether or not they survive.

Radical is related to the word root; by radical treatment one means remove the disease including all its roots (just like you would pull off a weed) so that it wont grow again. Radical treatment denotes that one's intent is that where as palliative means give just enough treatment alleviate the symptoms, and avoid as much toxicity (whereas in Radical treatment one would expect at least 5% toxicity. It may even be justifiable to increase the dose such that that much toxicity occurs. Radical and Palliative are terms that can be used for any anticancer treatment, including Chemotherapy, RT and even Surgery. Curative is essentially same as Radical (ie as regards) but in cancer it may not be right to call a treatment 'curative'; actually cure means that the riskof cancer death in a cancer patient population is same as that of general public. Radical is a word well worth preserving, and better conveys the intent of treating than the word curative.

When we define radiotherapy as "radical" we usually mean that   it is not administred  before or after another treatment option (mainly surgery) that is considered the gold standard for  our patient, but it is offered as the principal treatment option in order to eradicate that cancer in that specific stage ( so this word is  not used in a palliative setting).   I try to explain this concept with two examples.Postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer is a curative treatment, but not called " radical" because surgery removes the gross tumour and radiotherapy complete treatment by lowering the rate of locoregional failure.  But if we consider cervical cancer, in stage II radiotherapy plus chemotherapy is considered as a curative therapy with "radical" intent, i.e  IT is the best treatment option that allow us to eradicate that cancer in a higher percentage of patients avoiding surgery

Yes, Patrizia is right. Then the whole gamut of treatment (Surgery+Rt+CT) becomes curative; sometimes combinations are also given with palliative intent

Radiotherapists are forgetting these facts as Technology advances; formerly our case record contained options to indicate the nature of intent. Are they lacking now?

I believe another distinction that they have forgotten is that between prophylactic and adjuvant. How many know this?

Narayanan

 Our clinical records, as  those of the hospital where I worked previously, contain a space in which I must indicate  if treatment is curative or palliative , neoadjuvant, adiuvant or exclusive in combination or not with chemotherapy. All these options are  also included in our informed written consent, so  patients are well aware of what kind and purpose  of treatment option we propose.