Abstract
Purpose
We investigated the difference between tumor sizes measured via preoperative computed tomography (CT) images and in surgical specimens during pathologic examinations in a contemporary cohort of patients who received extirpative surgery for renal tumors.
Methods
We reviewed records of 467 patients who received radical or partial nephrectomy for renal lesions suspicious for malignancy. For our study, only patients who underwent preoperative CT within 4 weeks of surgery were included. In all patients, radiographic tumor size, defined as the largest diameter of tumor measured via CT images, and pathologic tumor size, the largest diameter of tumor measured in surgical specimen, were compared and analyzed by various factors.
Results
Among total subjects, mean radiographic and pathologic tumor size were 4.56 ± 2.99 and 4.49 ± 3.23 cm, respectively (P = 0.399). When subjects were categorized according to radiographic tumor size (1-cm range), statistically significant difference (average of 2 mm) between radiographic and pathologic tumor size was observed only in the 4 to <5 cm range (P = 0.046). Among those with clear cell renal cell carcinoma, mean radiographic tumor size was significantly larger than pathologic size, but by only 1.4 mm (P = 0.012). Factors such as age, gender, body mass index, tumor stage, tumor grade, and tumor location were observed to have no significant impact on differences observed between radiographic and pathologic tumor size.
Conclusions
Although actual size of renal mass can be generally overestimated by CT images, difference may be minimal and clinically insignificant in most cases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rini BI, Campbell SC, Escudier B (2009) Renal cell carcinoma. Lancet 373:1119–1132
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer, New York
Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS et al (2004) Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience. J Urol 171:2181–2185
Mouraviev V, Joniau S, Van Poppel H, Polascik TJ (2007) Current status of minimally invasive ablative techniques in the treatment of small renal tumours. Eur Urol 51:328–336
Herr HW (2000) Radiographic vs surgical size of renal tumours after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 85:19–21
Herr HW, Lee CT, Sharma S, Hilton S (2001) Radiographic versus pathologic size of renal tumors: implications for partial nephrectomy. Urology 58:157–160
Irani J, Humbert M, Lecocq B et al (2001) Renal tumor size: comparison between computed tomography and surgical measurements. Eur Urol 39:300–303
Yayciouglu O, Rutman MP, Balasubramaniam M et al (2002) Clinical and pathologic tumor size in renal cell carcinoma; difference, correlation, and analysis of influencing factors. Urology 60:33–38
Schlomer B, Figenshau RS, Yan Y et al (2006) How does the radiographic size of a renal mass compare with the pathologic size? Urology 68:292–295
Kurta JM, Thompson RH, Kundu S et al (2009) Contemporary imaging of patients with a renal mass: does size on computed tomography equal pathological size? BJU Int 103:24–27
Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2004) Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol 171:1066–1070
Dash A, Vickers AJ, Schachter LR et al (2006) Comparison of outcomes in elective partial vs radical nephrectomy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma of 4–7 cm. BJU Int 97:939–945
Conflict of interest statement
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, S.E., Lee, W.K., Kim, D.S. et al. Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. World J Urol 28, 263–267 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0