Has there been a trend against radiation in the 2.5-3 cm range?

[jbbrown15]

I keep hearing in real life and on this board about people who were told their tumor was too big to radiate at 2.5 cms and that additionally if the tumor is pressing on the brainstem it should not be radiated.  This would not concern me too much, except for the fact that these statements are being made by the same doctors and the same facilities that I went to in the fall of 2010 for my 2.9 cm AN that produced mass effect on my brain stem (per MRI report, and I could see it in the images).  At my age (then) of 33, my age certainly didn't play a role in the recommendation of radiation.  Yet neurosurgeons at both Penn and Jeff recommended radiation as the preferred treatment (GK and FSRT respectively).

Has anyone heard about new studies or a change in the consensus about those borderline sized tumors?

JB

[arizonajack]

In the past two years have your subsequent MRIs shown necrosis and any shrinkage of the tumor?

[jbbrown15]

Yes, I have had necrosis and, just recently, some shrinkage.

[arizonajack]

What are the dimensions as of your most current MRI?

[rupert]

My AN was only 2.2 X 1.6 and was pressing pretty good on the brain stem.  It was recommended by many doctors that radiation would be a good choice. Non mentioned a problem being on the brain stem.

Here is how I see it.  Under 2.5, there is very good success rates with radiation.  Over 3cm and the success rates go down some. As to that percentage is debatable between doctors.  There are other  considerations also when over 3cm.  It pushes on a lot, and getting it out to create some room and relieve pressure is needed with some.  So the grey area  is 2.5 - 3cm.  I think this is important information especially for people in the watch and wait status.  The larger it gets, the less options you have.  I am not seeing a trend away from radiation in that grey area, actually I see more and more docs pushing that grey area with radiation.