Thank you for your quick response, ChristineB. I understand that many people would not agree with my opinion with regard to treatment after treatment after treatment. I have talked with people who have been through all the surgeries, radiation, recurrences, etc., albeit their oral cancers were not PLGA. As you said, PLGA is very rare, with no known causes (like tobacco or alcohol use) and because it's so rare, not enough studies have been done to give a good roadmap for treatment. So, even though it is quite different than other forms of OC, it seems that the protocols are the same. A few that I've talked with feel as you do ~ do whatever it takes. But a few have also admitted that if they had it to do all over again, they would not have pursued some of the more aggressive therapies because they suffered such severe side effects, even months or years later, and felt they paid a terribly high price for a few extra years.

My main concern is just the pathologist's comment that my cancer is "suspicious for lympho-vascular invasion." I'm thinking that since it wasn't a "black or white certainty" either way, she was just covering her backside by including a "suspicion." I just wondered if anyone else in this forum had ever had that kind of verbiage in a pathology report and how, if at all, it weighed in their decisions as to whether or not to have radiation. I guess no one on this forum can help me in that regard.