I've been reading a ton since my diagnosis last week.
I had the impression, most younger (<65-70?) people in good health should choose active treatment (surgery or radiation), unless their tumor is pretty small.
I was thinking mine, at 1.4cm, is probably past the "wait and watch" window, and I should take care of it now since I am healthy and have good insurance. I figured my only dilemma now is choosing surgery vs radiation, and which docs.
But I just read a bunch of abstracts/reports tonight, about 8 different studies, all finding basically that less than ~50% of tumors show any growth at all, when monitored for various periods of time (some studies were shorter, one was 9 years and still had the same finding!).
The exact % varied from one study to the next but tended to stay between 40-50%. And for smaller tumors, the % that grow was smaller.
I had read the stats about average growth of 1-2mm/year, and simply assumed mine would probably do that. Now I am not sure at all.
Given a 50/50 chance that it does not grow for a long time, it seems like monitoring may not be a bad idea, even on a medium size tumor that is outside of the canal
(compared to the known risks of surgery, anesthesia, etc.)
Argh so hard to weigh the various alternatives. I certainly don't want it to get much bigger and harder to remove. But it's a pretty radical thing to open one's skull and poke around.
Curious how others evaluated WW vs surgery,
thanks for any input !