Hi, Dave,
I really enjoyed all your blog entries and your pictures -- brought back memories of my trans-lab surgery for a small AN tumor at House/St. Vincent's this past January (2008). My room also had a view of the Hollywood sign -- an unexpected bonus!
I do feel compelled to respond to one sentence in your final blog entry: "Had I been 59 instead of 39 I likely would have chosen radiation [over surgery]." In the interest of presenting a full range of viewpoints on this forum, I want you to know that I was 59 when I had my surgery and, six months post-surgery, I am feeling fine and back to all my normal activities ... and this includes regular exercise and an active lifestyle. My only prescription medication pre-surgery (and the only one I'm still on now) is a very low-dosage blood-pressure medicine. I didn't have one foot in the grave before my surgery and I don't now!!!
Judging from the postings, I definitely believe that I'm at the older end of the range of forum participants ... but I would hate for anyone to get the impression that "age" should necessarily trump "state-of-health" when deciding on the appropriate treatment. And please understand that while I'm certainly not suggesting that you were implying this by your comment, I hope you can understand why that sentence sort of jumped out at me! My reasons for choosing surgery over radiation treatment were quite similar to yours -- though I can certainly understand why many individuals, regardless of their age or health issues, would prefer radiation to surgery.
Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, when I was 39 I have to admit that I probably thought that 59 was pretty old, too! But I've found out that it's not.