Is it SBRT that is being offered? My father's experience was that it killed the met for about six months, but seems to have missed something as the met grew again. We also did not have chemo afterwards. There are others on this forum for whom SBRT worked, and it also seems to have worked despite no chemo afterwards.
As for the procedure, it was targeted and he took it over five days. He said it was like going in for an x-ray. He had no side effects.
My father just had the same lung met treated with RFA and we will meet the oncologist next week to discuss chemo. What we learnt through this process through the radiation oncologist and online studies is that although SBRT has an 80% local control rate, the 20% failure rate is usually for CRC mets. Whereas with RFA, whereas it has a 90% local control rate, the 10% failure rate is usually for lung cancer. Obviously nothing set in stone since these are fairly new treatment modalities, but worth bearing in mind.
The other thing to bear in mind is that SBRT substantially affects the anatomy of the lungs and affects the kinds of treatments you can have down the line. For example, whereas my father's met was on the left upper lobe and far away from any vital organs or structures, the SBRT shrunk his lung and the intervention radiologist who did the RFA said that the met was now much closer to the heart and aorta, substantially increasing the risk of the procedure. So unlike SBRT, RFA doesn't affect the structure of organs and can be safely repeated on the same tumor. The risks of repeating SBRT are much higher and the radiation oncologist absolutely refused to do it.
I hope this helps. Good luck with it.
Daughter of 73 year old father
Lung Met 2/2017. SBRT. No chemotherapy.
Met growth 12/2017. RFA.