Actually, to me, GK should be classified radiotherapy rather than surgery if used for AN.
Beings GK was originally designed to treat cancerous tumors, I imagine ( I really don't know ) a much higher dosage is used in that situation to make living cells instantly involiable as could be an acoustic neuroma if one weren't concerned about nerves and surrounding tissue; Thus probably the original and unchanged term for GK as being 'radiosurgery'.
Actually, gamma knife was not originally designed to treat cancer at all:
"The Gamma Knife was invented by Dr. Lars Leksell in Stockholm about 30 years ago. It was originally designed to make small areas of destruction (lesions) deep in the brain in order to treat pain conditions and movement disorders. Then people started using it to treat small inoperable arteriovenous malformations of the brain. Finally, it was used to treat small benign tumors at the base of the skull. All of these were good indications for this technology. Since the proliferation of Gamma Knives in this country, which began in 1986, the indications for radiosurgery have expanded with attempts to treat other types of tumors such as metastatic tumors and small high grade gliomas."
http://www.braintumorfoundation.org/tumors/gamma.htmRe: The previous poster and surgery, yes, I know regrowth occurs in some but comparing immediate results between microsurgery and irradiation is most definitely objective.
Don't know why you don't address me by name, it's clearly listed. Oh well. As for immediate results, sure, with surgery the tumor is usually removed immediately, barring that they don't have to leave some behind, which also happens a certain percentage of the time, in which case regrowth is almost certain if radiosurgery is not utilized after surgery. Immediately after CyberKnife, all the problems my tumor caused me were gone. I was back in the gym lifting as heavy as ever two days after. Of course my tumor wasn't an AN, and the nerves my schwannoma arose from are not as sensitive as hearing and balance nerves, so I can't speak for the AN experience. However, my results with radiosurgery were immediate. If I had surgery, I'd still be in the very early stages of recovery, and as with radiosurgery, I would still have a 2-3% chance of regrowth. I don't think there's anything objective about that.
Seems to me therapy or control's definition may be somewhat subjective a thing depending on how deep the practioners bias.
Really, most generally, Neurosurgeons and radio-oncologists are typically biased toward what they do, so statistics reported may border on the edges of reality.
Kind of like Psychiatrists do their 'thing' and Neurologists, theirs, and they may be treating for the same health problem.
If you think about it logically, gamma knife and surgery as practiced today have about the same amount of proven time behind them. Until microsurgery was developed, surgery for an AN had a very dismal prognosis, infections and death were very common. So long-term results and success of both treatments are about equal. However, due to the fact that recovery and post-treatment defecits are by far
not equal, the bias of neurosurgeons is often accompanied by myths and misinformation about radiosurgery, because they know as technology advances, surgery will disappear. Who wants to spend all those years in school for nothing?
Also, since Byron, the author of this thread has not posted since mid June, I take it his tumor was not growing, and he returned to other pursuits as he indicated. Note that it was his radiologist, not his treating physician, who thought it may still be growing. They are notorious for misreading radiosurgery results. Failure of radiosurgery after six years is very unlikely.
