If radiation has an excellent result rate for small tumors, than why do doctors surgically remove small tumors?
Why don't they send the patient off to GK ?
100 years ago everybody caught a ship to travel overseas, nobody flew.
50-60 years ago it was probably split 50:50.
Who takes a boat from New York to London these days?
Radiation even 20 years ago for an Acoustic Neuroma was a bit "out there"
The medical profession do err on the side of caution.
In the US it appears surgery remains the most popular option, while in Europe it has already gone the other way, with radiosurgery the most popular for small AN's
House Clinic probably are probably part of the reason this happens.
Their development of surgical technique, and research into AN's and their pursuit of excellence in microsurgery, as well as sharing the research and techniques with many others, has helped propogate best practice AN surgery to many.
As we know ships, got faster, got more entertainment, casinos, swimming pools, stabilisers, got cheaper, but eventually couldnt compete with air travel.
In 200 years from now everything might be non invasive.
I think radiation on small AN's is just a small step to a non invasive future.
In 30 years from now doctors maybe laughing at how they used to remove small AN's instead of using radiation.
Mind you they might be surgically removing radiation induced tumours from 80 year olds who had radiation 30 years ago too.
Mumbling under their breath... radiation... what were we thinking!
I think we are in the period where we have a choice and neither is right or wrong.
The trend towards totally non invasive techniques will continue as technology improves.