Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate long-term prevalence of tumor growth and need for further treatment in patients with a vestibular schwannoma treated with conservative management. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Private neurotologic tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Vestibular schwannoma patients undergoing conservative management and previously studied (N = 114). Mean time to last magnetic resonance imaging was 4.8 years and to last follow-up was 6.4 years (maximum, 18.5 yr). INTERVENTION: Serial gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with size measurement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in maximum tumor dimension of 2 mm or higher (growth), further treatment, audiologic measures-pure-tone average, word recognition, AAO-HNS (American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) hearing class. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of tumors demonstrated growth; an average of 6.5 mm (SD, 3.8) at a mean rate of 3.1 mm per year. Of patients with no growth at 1 year or less, 20% grew by last follow-up. Overall, 31% had further treatment after a mean of 3.8 years (SD, 3.5; maximum, 18.5 yr). Of those followed for 5 to 10 years, 18% eventually had further treatment. Only 56% of growing tumors had further treatment by last follow-up; 14.8% with nongrowing tumors also had further treatment. Pure-tone average declined more in tumors that grew (mean Δ = 28.8 dB) than those that did not (mean Δ = 16.5 dB) (p ≤ 0.025), but there was no correlation between the amount of change in hearing and in the size of the tumor. Of patients with an initial AAO-HNS hearing Class A, 85.7% retained serviceable hearing. CONCLUSION: For patients electing an observation approach to treatment of vestibular schwannoma, about 31% may eventually undergo further treatment. Of those followed for 5 to 10 years, 18% eventually had further treatment. However, some patients are followed with radiologic evaluations for many years without necessity for further treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fayad et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: