ANA Discussion Forum
Treatment Options => Radiation / Radiosurgery => Topic started by: Finn on October 09, 2009, 07:56:33 pm
-
Hello Fellow AN Members,
I have been W&W for the past two years. Recently my docs have seen some growth in my AN, now making it time to get this thing zapped. My path forward is selected.... SRS. I'm considering two different options, GK or single Shot Novalis. I am aware of Novalis being used for FSR, but has anyone gone through Novalis with a single session. I'm curious to hear what results people have experienced with this tool. There's a bunch of information and postings on GK and not much on Novalis.
Any information people are willing to share would be helpful.
Thanx,
Finn
-
I will be meeting with the oncologist on Friday about the Novalis TX...that is the treatment I have am leaning towards. I will ask him about the single vs the multiple. There is also some question regarding the accuracy of the Novalis vs GK, etc. From what I have read, it is more accurate than GK, but that is one of my questions.
-
Thank for the posting james e.
I completed my SRS with the Novalis tool mid December. One treatement session. Head frame and all....
It's my opinion all of the radation tools will achieve similar results provided they are presented with an AN with common characteristics. Results can vary based upon patient health, tumor size, location, adjacent structures, etc....
In my own looking into radiation I located a couple of papers from the Journal of Neurosurgery website.
They may help to answer some questions on Novalis and comparison to GK.
(a) Geometrical accuracy of the Novalis stereotactic radiosurgery system for trigeminal neuralgia, J. Neurosurgery Rahimian, et. al. Vol 101, Nov 2004, pp 351-355
(b) Contemporary method of radiosurgery treatment with the Novalis linear accelerator system, Neurosurgery Focus , Chen et. al. vol 23, Dec 2007
(c) Functional stereotactic radiosurgery involving a dedicated linear accelerator and gamma unit: a comparison study J. Neurosurgery,V 101, Nov 2004, pp 373-380
-finn
-
Hi Finn,
I have a couple of things to say. The first is that 3 months is not our typical turn around time for responding to posts. :)
The second is that I agree with your statement that "all of the radiation tools will achieve similar results provided they are presented with an AN with common characteristics." By far the biggest variable is the AN itself.
The discussions of theoretical accuracy, beam shape, etc. are nice and all, but the only thing that really matters is the outcomes for patients. I have not seen any published study that definitively establishes that patient outcomes are better or worse with one or another radiation machine.
I still like Cyberknife, but it is probably as much about the team at Stanford as the machine itself.
Steve