“Wait-and-Watch”
If an acoustic neuroma is small and acute symptoms are not present, an option is to “wait-and-watch” by monitoring the growth characteristics of the tumor with periodic MRIs. Any growth needs to be watched closely to avoid complications that are more likely to develop when a large tumor has to be treated. A study of 72 “wait-and-watch” patients at Toronto University Hospital was reported on in February 2000. The patients chose this “conservative management” of their tumors either because of poor general health, advanced age, small tumor size, patient preference, minimal symptoms, or because the tumor was in the only or better hearing ear. The patients’ tumors were monitored by periodic MRIs for an average of 37.8 months – the range was 12 to 194 months). The mean tumor growth rate for these patients was found to be 1.16 mm/year. Approximately 83% of tumors grew at less than 2.0 mm/year. No growth or insignificant growth was seen in 50% of tumors, significant growth in 36.4%, and negative growth in 13.6%. Patients were deemed to have failed “conservative management” if there was evidence of continuous or rapid tumor growth and/or increased symptoms. Such failure, in which active treatment was required, occurred in 15.3% of cases. In those patients who failed, the mean tumor growth rate was greater (4.2 mm/year) than in those who did not fail (0.5 mm/year). Worsening of hearing in patients occurred regardless of whether or not tumor growth was demonstrated. The final outcome for the failed patients appeared to be as favorable as for those who underwent primary treatment without a period of “wait-and-watch.”

A study (2003) at the Gentofte University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark has compared the long-term socio-economic and quality of life changes experienced by acoustic neuroma patients who were either operated on (716) or chose to wait-and-watch (226). The tumors in the wait-and-watch group were mostly below 2.0cm and were evaluated as the less aggressive type. Surgical intervention at the center was standard for tumors larger than 2.0cm with documented growth verified by MRI. The abstract of this study states, in part: “Regardless of tumor size, employment was unchanged for the majority of observed and operated patients. . . The majority of both observed and operated patients experienced no change in their ability to handle daily chores. . . Among various changes in their psycho-social well-being, decrease in social ability was the most frequent complaint in both groups, followed by increased fatigue, decreased concentration, increased irritability, depression and headache, decreased intellect and libido. Regardless of tumor size, the change in social ability, concentration and fatigue was worse for operated patients.” The study concluded: “It has to be realized that surgery of even small tumors has consequences worse than those of observation, concerning psycho-social well-being, ability to handle daily chores and vocational status. This clearly justifies a policy of observation and repetitive MRI of the increasing number of intra-meatal and small tumors, at least until growth is documented."

Microsurgery
Surgical removal of the tumor under general anesthesia is a second option. Advances in microsurgical techniques and the development of the medical team approach have greatly reduced the risk of damaging vital nerves during tumor removal. Brainstem response monitoring can be used to assist in preservation of hearing. Facial nerve monitoring may also be employed. In cases of especially large tumors, partial removal followed by radiosurgery treatment may be indicated to avoid complications. The best surgical outcomes are from medical centers with experienced acoustic neuroma teams.

There are three main surgical approaches used for removal of an acoustic neuroma. First, the translabyrinthine approach is used for large tumors and where preservation of hearing is not an issue. The incision is made in the hairline behind the ear and the tumor is exposed by removal of the mastoid bone, which results in total hearing loss in the affected ear. Minimal retraction of the brain is required. Facial nerve preservation, on the other hand, is facilitated by this approach. Total removal of the tumor has been achieved in a high percentage of cases.

Secondly, the retrosigmoid (suboccipital) approach affords the likelihood of hearing preservation in cases of tumor size up to about 2.5 cm. The incision is behind the ear and an opening is made behind the mastoid part of the ear. There is retraction of the cerebellar portion of the brain. The risk of facial nerve damage is limited. On the other hand, the incidence of persistent postoperative headache is reported as high, especially for small tumors (<1.0 cm). Recent modifications in microsurgical procedures (e.g., attention to bone dust removal, cranioplasty rather than craniectomy) have helped to avoid this complication.

Thirdly, for small tumors of 2.0 cm or less, the middle fossa approach may be used for cases where hearing preservation is a major consideration. The incision is made above the ear and with care taken to shave only a small area of the scalp. There is retraction of the temporal lobe of the brain. Possible damage to the facial nerve has been a major concern with this approach, although in recent years neural monitoring has greatly improved functional outcomes. Total removal rates have been high.

Radiosurgery & Radiotherapy
During the past decade especially, radiosurgery and radiotherapy have become increasingly attractive treatment options for acoustic neuroma patients because they are non-invasive procedures with few possible complications. There is no surgery involved, no incision or risk of infection, no long period of anesthesia or lengthy hospital stay. Treatment is virtually painless and costs are less than for microsurgery. The return to normal activities is usually immediate. The radiation technology and computer guidance involved in the procedures is very impressive and is being continually improved. Patients do need to understand that the tumor is not removed by radiation treatments; rather, the goal of radiosurgery and radiotherapy is to kill the tumor by destroying the blood vessels supporting its growth. This basic objective of “tumor growth control,” meaning shrinkage or unchanged size of the tumor, has been achieved in 98-100% of cases. Since the effects of radiation on a tumor are not immediate, microsurgery is still the appropriate first choice if tumor symptoms are acute or life-threatening. Excision of the tumor may also be preferred by patients for personal, psychological reasons.

Radiosurgery is the delivery of a single high dose of radiation in a one-day session, whereas radiotherapy involves multiple treatment sessions in which the total dose is spread over several days or weeks. Dividing the total dose over time in this manner is called fractionation. Thus we can speak of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, or FSR, where the term stereotactic refers to three-dimensional computerized target planning. Both radiosurgery, or SRS, and radiotherapy use stereotactic planning for precise delivery of the radiation dose to the tumor while sparing surrounding normal tissue. Radiosurgery provides a more precise, concentrated effect , but may not be the appropriate treatment if the tumor is very large or in a critical location. Radiotherapy, by splitting the total dose into fractions, may help in hearing preservation, but whether or not radiation delivered in several small doses will provide tumor growth control equivalent to radiosurgery’s single high dose remains to be determined.

Sometimes it is said that radiation treatment for acoustic neuroma is inadvisable because the long-term effects of such radiation are not known, or because radiation may cause the tumor to become malignant, or because an irradiated tumor that regrows will be difficult to remove surgically. More than three decades of experience with radiosurgery have shown these concerns to be unfounded or exaggerated. The chance of a malignant tumor being induced by stereotactic radiosurgery is extremely small (there are only five qualified case reports in the world literature), and microsurgical removal of previously irradiated tumors has not been shown to be more difficult in all cases. Patients with large tumors may experience postoperative complications (balance & vision) due to radiation-induced swelling. A course of medication, or surgical intervention, may be indicated.

The two main instruments used for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are the Gamma Knife and the Linac (linear accelerator). The Linac in its many different models, such as X-Knife, CyberKnife and Peacock or IMRT, is also used for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSR). Proton beam radiotherapy is a third form of external beam radiation used for acoustic neuroma, but is not widely available because the technology is extremely expensive. These instruments are described at length and compared at the excellent website of the International RadioSurgery Association.

Dr. Douglas Kondziolka (Univ. of Pittsburgh) has written: "Different Techniques of Acoustic Neuroma Radiosurgery," ANA Notes, Issue 100 (Dec. 2006). Past issues Notes, the Acoustic Neuroma Association's newsletter, are available for ordering at www.anausa.org.

ANA/NJ believes that individual treatment is best decided by the informed patient in consultation with medical professionals who specialize in acoustic neuroma. In this regard, ANA/NJ recommends that new patients consider the following:

1. Become familiar as soon as possible with all treatment options.
2. Consult with physicians who are Board certified and have extensive training and experience treating acoustic neuroma.
3. Get at least two or three opinions from different physicians about the best treatment for your particular acoustic neuroma.
4. Consider treatment with physicians who present and willingly discuss all treatment options.
5. Consider treatment with physicians who use a team approach when treating acoustic neuroma.
6. Speak with other patients who have been treated for acoustic neuroma.
Ask physicians for names of patients they have treated. (New Jerseyans may wish to consult ANA/NJ’s Directory of Members & Friends for names of patients willing to speak about their experiences.)
7. When researching on the Internet: (a) be cautious using web sites that do not offer information about all treatment options (b) evaluate whether or not the web site is trying to make a sincere effort to present up-to-date information about treatment outcomes based on the peer reviewed literature (c) be careful using web sites that appear to promote individual physicians or particular hospitals or foundations (d) avoid web sites that obviously promote one type of treatment while disparaging others.