Korean J Urol.  2013 Nov;54(11):738-743.

Comparative Analysis of Radiologically Measured Size and True Size of Renal Tumors

• Lee KB
• Kim SI
• Cho DS
• Park SK
• Jang HI
• Kim SJ

Abstract

PURPOSE
We evaluated the differences between radiologically measured size and pathologic size of renal tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The data from 171 patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for a renal tumor at Ajou University Hospital were reviewed. Radiologic tumor size, which was defined as the largest diameter on a computed tomographic scan, was compared with pathologic tumor size, which was defined as the largest diameter on gross pathologic examination.
RESULTS
Mean radiologic size was significantly larger than mean pathologic size for all tumors (p=0.019). When stratified according to radiologic size range, mean radiologic size was significantly larger than mean pathologic size for tumors <4 cm (p=0.003), but there was no significant difference between the sizes for tumors 4-7 cm and >7 cm. When classified according to histologic subtype, mean radiologic size was significantly larger than mean pathologic size only in clear cell renal cell carcinomas (p=0.002). When classified according to tumor location, mean radiologic size was significantly larger than mean pathologic size in endophytic tumors (p=0.043) but not in exophytic tumors. When endophytic tumors were stratified according to radiologic size range, there was a significant difference between the mean radiologic and pathologic sizes for tumors <4 cm (p=0.001) but not for tumors 4-7 cm (p=0.073) and >7 cm (p=0.603).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that in planning a nephron-sparing surgery for renal tumors, especially for endophytic tumors of less than 4 cm, the tumor size measured on a computed tomography scan should be readjusted to get a more precise estimate of the tumor size.

Keyword

Kidney; Neoplasms; Pathology; Radiology

MeSH Terms

Carcinoma, Renal Cell
Humans
Kidney
Nephrectomy

Reference

1. Zini L, Patard JJ, Capitanio U, Mejean A, Villers A, de La Taille A, et al. The use of partial nephrectomy in European tertiary care centers. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35:636–642.

2. Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Kwon ED, Cheville JC, et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008; 179:468–471.

3. Mathew A, Devesa SS, Fraumeni JF Jr, Chow WH. Global increases in kidney cancer incidence, 1973-1992. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2002; 11:171–178.

4. Choi JB, Yoon BI, Kim SJ, Cho HJ, Hong SH, Choi YJ, et al. Changes in clinicopathological characteristics of renal cell carcinoma in the past 25 years: a single-center experience. Korean J Urol. 2011; 52:110–114.

5. Jayson M, Sanders H. Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1998; 51:203–205.

6. Belldegrun A, Tsui KH, deKernion JB, Smith RB. Efficacy of nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: analysis based on the new 1997 tumor-node-metastasis staging system. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17:2868–2875.

7. Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol. 2000; 163:442–445.

8. Herr HW. Radiographic vs surgical size of renal tumours after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2000; 85:19–21.

9. Irani J, Humbert M, Lecocq B, Pires C, Lefebvre O, Dore B. Renal tumor size: comparison between computed tomography and surgical measurements. Eur Urol. 2001; 39:300–303.

10. Yaycioglu O, Rutman MP, Balasubramaniam M, Peters KM, Gonzalez JA. Clinical and pathologic tumor size in renal cell carcinoma; difference, correlation, and analysis of the influencing factors. Urology. 2002; 60:33–38.

11. Schlomer B, Figenshau RS, Yan Y, Bhayani SB. How does the radiographic size of a renal mass compare with the pathologic size? Urology. 2006; 68:292–295.

12. Kanofsky JA, Phillips CK, Stifelman MD, Taneja SS. Impact of discordant radiologic and pathologic tumor size on renal cancer staging. Urology. 2006; 68:728–731.

13. Choi JY, Kim BS, Kim TH, Yoo ES, Kwon TG. Correlation between radiologic and pathologic tumor size in localized renal cell carcinoma. Korean J Urol. 2010; 51:161–164.

14. Mistry R, Manikandan R, Williams P, Philip J, Littler P, Foster CS, et al. Implications of computer tomography measurement in the management of renal tumours. BMC Urol. 2008; 8:13.

15. Kurta JM, Thompson RH, Kundu S, Kaag M, Manion MT, Herr HW, et al. Contemporary imaging of patients with a renal mass: does size on computed tomography equal pathological size? BJU Int. 2009; 103:24–27.

16. Lee SE, Lee WK, Kim DS, Doo SH, Park HZ, Yoon CY, et al. Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. World J Urol. 2010; 28:263–267.

17. Igarashi T, Tobe T, Nakatsu HO, Suzuki N, Murakami S, Hamano M, et al. The impact of a 4 cm. cutoff point for stratification of T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2001; 165:1103–1106.

18. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D, Dorey F, Said JW, Gitlitz BJ, et al. Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm. better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol. 2001; 166:54–58.

19. Crispen PL, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Sebo TS, Cheville JC, Blute ML, et al. Outcomes following partial nephrectomy by tumor size. J Urol. 2008; 180:1912–1917.