Thanks for your comments. The sentence in question is extracted from the http://anworld.com/treat/
page where treatment options are examined as a function of tumor size.
I think it is true that the purpose of fractionation is to allow non-tumor tissues to recover from radiation damage between sessions. If not, why fractionate? When the tumor is close to sensitive tissues such as the brainstem, the amount of swelling that occurs after radiation is a concern. That is why the sentence suggests that fractionated treatments might be preferred as the tumor gets larger.
Is your objection specifically about comparing Gamma Knife to FSR without mentioning Cyberknife? If so I would be perfectly happy to change the wording to "...with radiation single session treatment (GK) is suitable at the lower end of this size range, but fractionated treatments are usually more suitable for the upper size limit". Would you agree?
I'm not certain what Cyberknife centers claim specifically about size limits and swelling. Can you point me to a published report, from Stanford for example, where the question is discussed? I'll be glad to include it as a link on the http://anworld.com/radiation
To answer your comment that the range of links is lopsided, frankly we didn't count the number of links. It just so happens that we needed an extra link for Lederman's presentation given in Paris in January this year, and one to a website where his former patients tell their stories. If anyone has useful links to add for other treatment centers, the more the better. Bring them on, as they say.
There is a lot of information on Cyberknife already on the http://anworld.com/radiation
page. But if you feel there is more to say based on more recent information your contribution would be welcome.