Hi Jen
My feeling is you are pretty OK in choosing either CK or GK.
GK is not usually done in fractions as isn't necessary, but can be done this way and sometimes is, depending on Dr. and tumor location, size. This is according to an employee of the San Diego Gamma Knife Center. An accuracy of .66 mm. for GK is reported there also.
GK has the longest record of usage on AN, dating back to 1969. It is tissue sparing by nature though done in one "sitting".
201 gamma rays are passed through a collomater from a constant cobalt source of radiation and intersect powerfully at target acoustic neuroma. They are weak going in and 1/2 strength coming out, so surrounding tissue is spared. Dispersion into surrounding tissue is also minimal. Average doses today have been scaled back to approximately 15 gy. I'm unsure, off hand, how that compares to CK.
Of course, you've read the other fitting differences for treatment as posted.
I personally like the fact HEI would say you are a GK candidate. To others, reported statistics may be of greater importance to consider.
Being radiation is radiation, if this were a choice to make for myself, I'd choose the most experienced GK provider.
Of course; Bottom line is, you should be comfortable with your own 'gut' feeling and choice. I've often wondered whether one can develop a 'gut' feeling w/o being a lay expert in the field. Well; As so many thoughts, consultations, decisions, etc. go into the decision making process, oftentimes I think it good to not be overly complicated and bogged down in technical details and %s of probabilities.
In the end, each responds slightly differently and there are no guarantees of the effiacy of any Tx approach.
I hope this isn't too long...
Best wshes to you in every way!
Russ
