Sounds like a step up from the existing treatment where they implant tiny radioactive pellets into the cancerous mass ? I wonder if this new treatment dissipates or stays in the body for life ?.
Incidentally, what makes this approach somewhat novel is that they are using alpha (ionizing) radiation. It kills cells, but has a very short distance of effectiveness. It's the same principle as radio-iodine being used for thyroid cancer, but being applied to other forms of cancer. Personally, I think it's just a lot of hype.
Unless you can attach those alpha particles to something that will be readily absorbed by the cancer cells, such as iodine in the thyroid. Their range of effect is not enough to kill all of a tumor of a significant size. And if the tumors are too small, then detection and delivery by needle just isn't a very feasible solution.
We all have the genes for cancer, called oncogenes. For most of us our oncogenes are missing the required start codons, a specific three base pair upstream of the genes that tells translation proteins where to start reading the code to build the proteins encoded. For Eukaryotas - people and animals - the start codon is 'AUG'.
Another important thing to know is that point mutations - single base pair changes in our DNA - happen fairly regularly. Some think it's the accumulation of these small changes over time that we perceive as aging. Also, our DNA is incredibly long and most of it is junk - meaning it doesn't code for anything. For the most part, if these random changes happen in that junk area then there is no effect. If it happens in the gene code, then a single amino acid in the protein being encoded is changed.
So if you have blue eyes, a single cell might be changed to now code for brown pigmentation, and the change will largely be masked by the rest. But, if it happens upstream of the oncogenes, it can turn that junk region into a start codon.
When we talk about carcinogens, we are talking about substances that interfere with how our DNA is copied. Basically, carcinogens increase the likelihood that point mutations will occur. Again, most of our DNA is junk, so a single change isn't likely to be a big deal. But, we're talking about this occurring in every cell of your body, over and over again for your entire life. The more frequently a cell divides the more it's genetic code is copied, which means more opportunities for errors to occur.
Lets say a particular oncogene you got from your dad, you have 2 versions for every gene - one from your mom, and one from your dad has the start codon at AUC. It is just one base code away from being the AUG required for that oncogene to be expressed. And, it's found in every cell of your body. All it takes is for a random point mutation to happen in just one of the billions of cells making up your body at just the right spot to result in that cancer being turned on. Toss in some smoking or other risk factors, and the odds go up.
Radiation may have killed cancer cells but it returned. Forty years later, new cancer. Until they know why cells turn cancerous, they can’t stop it. Treatment, depending on how soon it’s caught. So not buying this story yet.
Again once you have cancer you are at a higher chance to get it again. This is because although the cancer may have been eradicated, the non-cancerous precursor cells that gave rise to it are still dividing. As those cells divide they are subject to the same transcription and translation errors that gave rise to the cancer the first time.
Some of their daughter cells may get errors that make cancer less likely, and others more likely. But the more precursor cells that are 'close' to becoming cancerous, then your overall chances increase.
