Cargando…

Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses

BACKGROUND: Tumor size is a critical variable in staging for renal cell carcinoma. Clinicians rely on radiological estimates of pathological tumor size to guide patient counseling regarding prognosis, choice of treatment strategy and entry into clinical trials. If there is a discrepancy between radi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeffery, Nicola N, Douek, Norbert, Guo, Ding Y, Patel, Manish I
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-11-2
_version_ 1782200257220706304
author Jeffery, Nicola N
Douek, Norbert
Guo, Ding Y
Patel, Manish I
author_facet Jeffery, Nicola N
Douek, Norbert
Guo, Ding Y
Patel, Manish I
author_sort Jeffery, Nicola N
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Tumor size is a critical variable in staging for renal cell carcinoma. Clinicians rely on radiological estimates of pathological tumor size to guide patient counseling regarding prognosis, choice of treatment strategy and entry into clinical trials. If there is a discrepancy between radiological and pathological measurements of renal tumor size, this could have implications for clinical practice. Our study aimed to compare the radiological size of solid renal tumors on computed tomography (CT) to the pathological size in an Australian population. METHODS: We identified 157 patients in the Westmead Renal Tumor Database, for whom data was available for both radiological tumor size on CT and pathological tumor size. The paired Student's t-test was used to compare the mean radiological tumor size and the mean pathological tumor size. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. We also identified all cases in which post-operative down-staging or up-staging occurred due to discrepancy between radiological and pathological tumor sizes. Additionally, we examined the relationship between Fuhrman grade and radiological tumor size and pathological T stage. RESULTS: Overall, the mean radiological tumor size on CT was 58.3 mm and the mean pathological size was 55.2 mm. On average, CT overestimated pathological size by 3.1 mm (P = 0.012). CT overestimated pathological tumor size in 92 (58.6%) patients, underestimated in 44 (28.0%) patients and equaled pathological size in 21 (31.4%) patients. Among the 122 patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors, there was a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging in 35 (29%) patients. Of these, 21 (17%) patients were down-staged post-operatively and 14 (11.5%) were up-staged. Fuhrman grade correlated positively with radiological tumor size (P = 0.039) and pathological tumor stage (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant but small difference (3.1 mm) between mean radiological and mean pathological tumor size, but this is of uncertain clinical significance. For some patients, the difference leads to a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging, which may have implications for pre-operative patient counseling regarding prognosis and management.
format Text
id pubmed-3056852
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30568522011-03-15 Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses Jeffery, Nicola N Douek, Norbert Guo, Ding Y Patel, Manish I BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: Tumor size is a critical variable in staging for renal cell carcinoma. Clinicians rely on radiological estimates of pathological tumor size to guide patient counseling regarding prognosis, choice of treatment strategy and entry into clinical trials. If there is a discrepancy between radiological and pathological measurements of renal tumor size, this could have implications for clinical practice. Our study aimed to compare the radiological size of solid renal tumors on computed tomography (CT) to the pathological size in an Australian population. METHODS: We identified 157 patients in the Westmead Renal Tumor Database, for whom data was available for both radiological tumor size on CT and pathological tumor size. The paired Student's t-test was used to compare the mean radiological tumor size and the mean pathological tumor size. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. We also identified all cases in which post-operative down-staging or up-staging occurred due to discrepancy between radiological and pathological tumor sizes. Additionally, we examined the relationship between Fuhrman grade and radiological tumor size and pathological T stage. RESULTS: Overall, the mean radiological tumor size on CT was 58.3 mm and the mean pathological size was 55.2 mm. On average, CT overestimated pathological size by 3.1 mm (P = 0.012). CT overestimated pathological tumor size in 92 (58.6%) patients, underestimated in 44 (28.0%) patients and equaled pathological size in 21 (31.4%) patients. Among the 122 patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors, there was a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging in 35 (29%) patients. Of these, 21 (17%) patients were down-staged post-operatively and 14 (11.5%) were up-staged. Fuhrman grade correlated positively with radiological tumor size (P = 0.039) and pathological tumor stage (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant but small difference (3.1 mm) between mean radiological and mean pathological tumor size, but this is of uncertain clinical significance. For some patients, the difference leads to a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging, which may have implications for pre-operative patient counseling regarding prognosis and management. BioMed Central 2011-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3056852/ /pubmed/21342488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-11-2 Text en Copyright ©2011 Jeffery et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jeffery, Nicola N
Douek, Norbert
Guo, Ding Y
Patel, Manish I
Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
title Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
title_full Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
title_fullStr Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
title_full_unstemmed Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
title_short Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
title_sort discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-11-2
work_keys_str_mv AT jefferynicolan discrepancybetweenradiologicalandpathologicalsizeofrenalmasses
AT doueknorbert discrepancybetweenradiologicalandpathologicalsizeofrenalmasses
AT guodingy discrepancybetweenradiologicalandpathologicalsizeofrenalmasses
AT patelmanishi discrepancybetweenradiologicalandpathologicalsizeofrenalmasses