Korean J Urol.  2010 Mar;51(3):161-164.

Correlation between Radiologic and Pathologic Tumor Size in Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma

• Choi JY
• Kim BS
• Kim TH
• Yoo ES
• Kwon TG

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the accuracy of radiologic tumor size for making decisions regarding nephron-sparing surgery of localized renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), we compared tumor size measured by a preoperative radiologic modality with that measured in the pathologic specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and December 2007, a total of 186 patients with pT1 or pT2 RCC underwent radical or partial nephrectomy at our institute. We excluded 11 patients who had preoperative arterial embolization (n=9) or positive surgical margins (n=2), and a total of 175 patients were included in this study. Radiologic size was defined as the largest diameter on computed tomography (CT), and pathologic size was defined as the largest diameter of the surgical specimen of the tumor. We retrospectively analyzed the difference between radiologic and pathologic tumor size. RESULTS: The radiologic and pathologic tumor sizes did not significantly differ (4.98+/-2.82 cm vs. 4.55+/-2.70 cm, respectively, p=0.152). In the subgroup analysis, the size difference was statistically significant only for tumor sizes of less than 6 cm. The size difference was largest in tumors of 3 to 4 cm, for which mean the radiologic size was 0.63+/-1.19 cm larger than the mean pathologic size (p=0.002). Histologic type had no significant influence on the difference between radiologic and pathologic size. CONCLUSIONS: The tumor size of RCCs in preoperative CT seems to correlate well with pathologic tumor size. However, CT imaging may overestimate the size of a tumor in the small mass group (less than 6 cm). These results should be considered when making decisions about nephron-sparing surgery.

Keyword

Renal cell carcinoma; Nephrectomy; Radiology

MeSH Terms

Carcinoma, Renal Cell
Humans
Nephrectomy
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F, Badellino F, Kameyama S, MacLennan G, et al. Union International Contre Ie Cancer (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). TNM staging of renal cell carcinoma: Workgroup No. 3. Cancer. 1997. 80:992–993.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Novick AC. Laparoscopic and partial nephrectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2004. 10:6322S–6327S.

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

6. Smith SJ, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Horii SC, Raghavendra BN. Renal cell carcinoma: earlier discovery and increased detection. Radiology. 1989. 170:699–703.

7. Lightfoot N, Conlon M, Kreiger N, Bissett R, Desai M, Warde P, et al. Impact of noninvasive imaging on increased incidental detection of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2000. 37:521–527.

8. Lee HW, Cho KS, Jeong H, Yoon SJ, Jo MK, Lee ES, et al. Clinical analysis of incidentally found renal cell carcinoma: experiences of recent 8 years. Korean J Urol. 1998. 39:982–987.

9. Seong BM, Kim DS, Yoon DK. Clinical characteristics of incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma. Korean J Urol. 1997. 38:245–249.

10. Rhew HY, Kang JS, Jo SS, Lee CK. Clinical characteristics of incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma: incidentaloma. Korean J Urol. 2000. 41:1195–1201.

11. Smith RB, deKernion JB, Ehrlich RM, Skinner DG, Kaufman JJ. Bilateral renal cell carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma in the solitary kidney. J Urol. 1984. 132:450–454.

12. Schiff M Jr, Bagley DH, Lytton B. Treatment of solitary and bilateral renal carcinomas. J Urol. 1979. 121:581–586.

13. Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol. 1999. 162:1930–1933.

14. Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2004. 171:1066–1070.

15. Manikandan R, Srinivasan V, Rané A. Which is the real gold standard for small-volume renal tumors? Radical nephrectomy versus nephron-sparing surgery. J Endourol. 2004. 18:39–44.

16. Nam JK, Cha CS, Chung MK. The treatment outcomes of a partial nephrectomy in the management of renal cell carcinomas. Korean J Urol. 2004. 45:1100–1105.

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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.