Joined: 10/6/2009
Posts: 1
|
Dear Doctors Medbury & Spunberg,
I'm deciding on my treatment options for my AN. I'm newly diagnosed at the age of 45 with a 2.2cm x 1.6cm tumor. I have tinnitus and some verbal hearing loss of 30db (I'm still not sure what that means in %?) I was looking at a website called www.acousticneuroma.org by the House Institute in LA. They've been treating AN quite successfully for many years and seem to be a leader in treatment options. They mention on their page about stereotactic radio treatment the following:
" A published series of patients treated by stereotactic radiosurgery have documented the various complications that can occur with this treatment. This includes facial paralysis, facial numbness, hearing loss, damage to the brain stem, hydrocephalus, and dizziness. Because of the high complication rates with early attempts at stereotactic radiosurgery, the various centers performing this treatment have continuously been decreasing the radiation dose delivered in these cases. This creates a very real concern for the long-term effectiveness of this therapy. It is well demonstrated that decreasing radiation doses leads to a lowering of the effectiveness of radiation treatments in both malignant and benign tumors. The question of long-term efficacy will not be answered for several more years when patients who have recently undergone this treatment are continually followed and studied for any recurrence of the tumor. These patients will need yearly MRI scans for many years to monitor the tumors for further growth. For the time being, this form of therapy has to remain classified as "experimental" because of the continuous alterations that are ongoing in radiation dose and the uncertain long-term effectiveness of the treatment.
Currently, most patients who are referred for stereotactic radiosurgery are elderly or are in poor general medical condition, making them a high surgical risk in terms of undergoing general anesthesia. The size of tumor is also extremely important in terms of someone's candidacy for this treatment. Tumors which are 3cm or larger in diameter are not candidates for stereotactic radiosurgery as it has been shown to be completely ineffective in these large tumors."
Their claims don't seem to give much justice to radiation unless it's the only option. How would you repudiate these claims? The term experimental seems quite downgrading. I'm especially concerned about the long term effects of radiation. Is there long term studies for someone like me who hopes to be around another 40 years?
I'm strongly considering meeting with the CK team in St. Paul. I've met with neurosurgeon who wants to surgical remove via Retro giving me a 50% of SSD and other possible effects.
It would be nice to know that I'm making the right decision. I do know that it is a personal choice as well. I'd like to minimize the risks though and have as much as possible to what I currently have.
Thank you very much for your time and effort responding to me!
Best Regards,
Rifest
dianosed 9/14/09 AN right side. 2.2cmx1.6cm
|
Joined: 10/10/2008
Posts: 2354
|
As I have said here before, their site is a big load of horse puckey. Almost no patients in our area choose surgery. Radiosurgery is simply a better option. There are no consequential 40 year results for ANY medical treatment. Medicine changes too much to compare results, and patients move around too much to be followed for that long. There are simply too many false statements in their site to be worth refuting.
Clinton A. Medbery, III, M.D.
St. Anthony Hospital Cyberknife Center
(405) 272-7311
buddy@swrads.org
Mail to:
Clinton A. Medbery, III, M.D.
Southwest Radiation Oncology
1011 N. Dewey Ave. #101
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
|