Fast growing AN

[marion]

I am wondering what are the statistics for the fast growing AN?  From the AN patient survey
2007-2008, I don't see any breakdown by this 10% populaiton.  My tumor grows 2x within 8 months
from 5mm to 10mm.  Does any of you know about whether radiosurgery is just effective
to fast growing AN as the slow growing tumor?  Thanks, Marion

[ppearl214]

Hi Marion and welcome.

Mine was growing at a good clip, but not as fast as you note. Pls keep in mind that head MRI's have a total margin of error of +/-2mm.... so I had to keep that in mind when we noted as to whether mine was growing fast or not.

I had CK almost 3 yrs ago and the growth of mine has completed stunted... actually, with a minor hint of shrinkage.

Hope that helps... and again, welcome.
Phyl

[Pooter]

Marion,

I haven't seen anything specifically related to treatment options and fast/slow growing AN's.  However, I will tell you that it could be just in an "active" phase right now.  Some have seen some growth noted on an MRI, and then it stays consistent for a while (sometimes years) before any more growht is noted.  It could very well have grown the past 8 months and then grow no more for the next 8 months.  I would expect that radiosurgery is just as effective with a fast growing one as a slow growing one, however.

Plus, with a margin of error of +/- mm (as Phyl noted), it may not be as fast growing as you think.

If you aren't having major symptoms, then I might be inclined to wait another few months and do another MRI to see if there's any more growth before deciding on treatment.  Keep in mind that you have to be willing to change your mind and have treatment earlier if symptoms present themselves or get worse while waiting for the next MRI.

Regardless, I hope you have success in your plan of action.  Keep us updated on progress.

Regards,
Brian

[marion]

As a new member of the forum, I am very glad to receive two replies about my questions so far.
It is great to know that your supportive responses are very heartwarming; and i am reassured
by your sharing.  My doctors at UCSF offer me very conflicting treatment options; and they
are not sure about my tumor biology, thus recommended surgery as the best choice, so that
they can do frozon section. None of them told me that AN tumor can grow sometime and rest for sometime as Brain said; but presonallyI would prefer radiation treatment.  I am still seeking out
all possibilities.  Thanks, Marion

[Kaybo]

Marion~
Welcome to our Happy Little Group!!   

I would think that unless the location of your tumor is a problem, it is definitely small enough to consider radiosurgery.  I had my surgery a long time ago before there was such a thing and even if there was, it was too large and pressing on my brainstem.  I think if I had the choice today, though, I would absolutely be checking into that!!

K

[sgerrard]

Oddly enough, I believe that radiation treatment is more effective on fast growing tumors. When the cells are busy multiplying rapidly, they are more susceptible to the disruption caused by radiation, and get messed up quicker (that is the technical term ). For instance:

"Stereotactic radiosurgery works by damaging the DNA in tumor cells. In some cases, it causes complete disappearance of the tumor, where in other cases, it may prevent further growth of the tumor. For fast-growing malignant and metastatic tumors, results may be seen as soon as a month. With slow-growing tumors, these changes may appear over months to a year or two."

Here is a link to the CK forum, where you can ask a radiation oncologist about it: http://www.cyberknife.com/Forum.aspx. Or just contact Dr. Chang at Stanford, and see what he has to say about it.

Steve

[marion]

I appreciate very much for the suggestion that I shall speak with Dr. Chang at Stanford.  I would like
to know the differences in outcome between gamma knife and cyber knife.  Will have my appointment
with a radiation oncologist at UCSF this Friday, I will poss my questions to her as well.  Thanks, Marion

[Tumbleweed]

Marion:

I've never heard of any limitation in treating a fast-growing tumor with CK or GK. The tumor's size and location (and a patient's age and condition) seem to be the only significant factors in choosing whether or not to treat with radiation. Elderly and infirm patients are actually better candidates for radiation versus for surgery (surgery is considered to be more dangerous if you're not in good health and are in your senior years).

Take heart in my story: my tumor grew about 50 to 60% in volume over a 5-month period. I decided to get CK because of the rapid growth and because the tumor started pressing on my brainstem. 3 months later, on the day before treatment, a CT scan revealed that my tumor had not grown at all since the last MRI taken three months earlier. So, yes, these tumors can go through a growth spurt and then slow down or halt. My first followup MRI taken only 5 months after CK seems to support Steve's post in this thread: it showed widespread necrosis nearly throughout the tumor, pretty remarkable for such a short period of time since treatment. So perhaps that's the silver lining in having a tumor that is or has been fast-growing.

Best wishes,
Tumbleweed

[ppearl214]

I appreciate very much for the suggestion that I shall speak with Dr. Chang at Stanford.  I would like
to know the differences in outcome between gamma knife and cyber knife.  Will have my appointment
with a radiation oncologist at UCSF this Friday, I will poss my questions to her as well.  Thanks, Marion

Hi Marion,

recent discussion about the differences... may be of help. Please see Mark's post/comments

http://anausa.org/forum/index.php?topic=8589.msg93548#msg93548

Phyl

[wendysig]

Hi Marion and welcome -
Reading your post made me think of my very first visit with my neurotologist and Steve is 100% correct.  My doctor and discussed this very thing when we discussed the pros and cons of radiosurgery and microsurgery and the different form of radiosurgery (GK, CK, etc).  I definitely remember him saying that radiosurgery is more effective on a fast growing tumor.  Whatever you choose to do, just make sure it's the right choce for you.

Best wishes,
Wendy

[krbonner]

My tumor grew from 1.8cm to 2.3cm in a year, and that was considered fast-growing.  There is a lot of accepted anecdotal evidence (though no peer reviewed studies yet) suggesting that some women have faster growing tumors correlating with fluctuating hormone - and estrogen in particular - levels (in my case, my AN was initially detected and monitored during my pregnancies and breastfeeding - definitely a time of fluctuating hormones!).  It's not a comprehensive explanation for fast-growing tumors, but a theory that seems to hold true for many.

I would think your tumor is small enough that radiation is still a good option.  Regardless of the growth rate, the goal of radiation is to stop the growth in its tracks.

Good luck!

Katie