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

Abstract

PurposeWe evaluated the differences between radiologically measured size and pathologic size of renal tumors.Materials and MethodsThe 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.ResultsMean 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).ConclusionsOur 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.