This makes me doubt the reliability of cancer diagnosis: >They were understandably terrified, but neurologists who read the radiology report seemed unconcerned, explaining that such masses were common among women, and suggested Scott have it checked again in a year. Yet at the end of the article they say >if she had waited six months, she would have had severe, and possibly permanent, degradation of her sight.
I know this sounds insane, but menigiomas (which I'd guess is what the neurologist suspected it was) are almost always benign and shockingly common - many post-mortems find these guys just kind of hanging out in/around the brain. The corollary is that any kind of cranial surgery has enormous risks. Point being, if a doctor sees what appears to be a (surprisingly) common event on a chart, they're not going to necessarily recommend further action other than observation UNLESS there's a change to the patient (which, as kitbrennan pointed out, almost certainly accompanied the "get it checked again in a year").