Cancer Survivors Network

i would definitely opt for the surgery , if they can remove all of it. I was inoperable and had chemo and rads. They both have side effects which I have to deal with now. I would glady have this damn tumor removed , but it is now still a part of me the size of a walnut and am always worrying about mets from this damn thing still in me. I would seek a second opinion from another oncologist, radiation only cooks the tumor, while surgery removes it, hugggs and will keep you in my prayers, Mike

I also was inoperable, (IIIa). Had aggressive radiation over nine weeks. That reduced the tumor by 75%. Surgery then removed the remaining tumor. I feel that it really depends on the size and location of the tumor. Mine was originally 4.5 x 5.8 x 7.7 cm, upper right lung, leaning on my esophagus. I am now over three years out, and, so far no more cancer. You probably should seek a second opinion from a medical oncologist (vs radiation oncologist). That should help you with the right decision. I was 67 at the time of my surgery, and it wasn't exactly a walk in the park. I know younger people who have had it and had an easier time of it. I also have relatively minor residual damage from radiation, but overall, I am happy that I went with both radiation and surgery. Good luck. Ernie