Originally Posted by viperfred
It is impossible to show 10 or 12 or 14 year data before when a treatment is only been used for 5 years with zero failures from the first study....
Personally I'm comfortable with much less followup for effectiveness for CK SBRT, largely because of points you have raised.
What I'm really eager to see is another year or two of data from the King series, which we may have from the recent Users Group Meeting. That would give us four or five years of followup for side effects, and my impression is that the consensus of radiation doctors is that five years is enough to assess the kind, intensity, severity, and frequency of radiation side effects. Four years would be close, especially with favorable data on at least a few patients with five years of followup, which we should also now have.
Yes, there would still be risk that as the years go by that CK SBRT might turn out not to be as effective as we think, and it might also turn out to develop unexpectedly late side effects after four or five years, but to me the odds would be strongly against that.
To me, it gets down to how much risk is too much for the patient in his own view, balanced against the clear advantages that you have discussed.