Any way to determine how long primary tumor has been around?

Bennette said:

looking for why
alice124,

I am new to all this, my mom was just diagnosed in the past week. My siblings and I have been asking why too, what caused this, etc. So far the best explanation I have found, is on the MDanderson.org website if you just use their search box and type in " anti cancer ", you will get an list of related items. Choose the one titled "Anti-Cancer: Explore a New Way of Life - MD Anderson Cancer Center ..." and the next line starts with "Video" - right now it is the fifth one on the search list. This video was very enlightening as to why there is such an increase in the rate of cancer. I don't know if it will help you or not, but it has a lot of good information it not just for understanding why, but for changes that will help prevent or fight it.

My mom's doctor told us "it has been there for quite a while." That is the only aging information we were given.

As we continue our search for more information, I wish you luck on your's too!

Bennette

Texas_wedge said:

Rate of Growth
This is from a paper on the topic

"In the landmark report of surveillance of kidney tumors, Bosniak et al. retrospectively reviewed the imaging of 40 incidentally detected .5 cm renal masses that had been followed up for a mean of 3.25 years (range 1.75-8.5 years). Of 26 tumors that were eventually removed after an average of 3.8 years (range 1.8-8.5 years), 22 (84.6%) were histologically confirmed as RCC. Variable tumor growth rates were observed, but the overall mean linear growth rate for all tumors was 0.36 cm/year"</p>

Limelife50 said:

Your math
Please correct me if I am wrong but according to your math it took twelve years for my 5CM tumor to develop,you also fail to take grade into account,as I do know for a fact ,higher the grade larger the cancer cell,hence faster growth rate.

Limelife50 said:

Your math
Please correct me if I am wrong but according to your math it took twelve years for my 5CM tumor to develop,you also fail to take grade into account,as I do know for a fact ,higher the grade larger the cancer cell,hence faster growth rate.

foxhd said:

growth rate.
What a good question. I also was only told that it had been there a long time. Surgeon was alittle surprised it wasn't picked up during tests for and removal of my Gall bladder several years earlier.

Texas_wedge said:

growth rate
I'm astonished, Fox. I've assumed that that was the first question most would ask. It was certainly the first question I asked and had the reply from an expert that the received wisdom is that most (non-aggressive) tumours grow at 1/3 t0 1/2 cm per year and I've confirmed this in the literature (see the quote I gave above).

It does depend on cell type but not on cell size in the way suggested by Limelife whose comments above are, I believe, completely mistaken. (Limelife, I'm happy to stand corrected if you can show authority for your statements - it's important for us all to get our facts straight so I'll concede graciously if you can demonstrate that the experts I'm quoting are wrong.) I offer the following exposition which suggests quite the opposite:

"Small cell cancer is a type of lung cancer.

Most small cell cancers start in the lung but they can first occur elsewhere in the body -- for example in the bowel, bladder or prostate. Small cell cancers grow fast and spread quickly, so they are hard to cure. Small cell lung cancer is sometimes called oat cell cancer because the abnormal cells look like oats under the microscope.

Blood and lymph moves through the lungs as it circulates throughout the body. So it is very easy for small cell cancer cells to spread very quickly. This kind of cancer can spread to any organ, but most commonly affects the brain, liver, adrenal glands and bone.

In most cases, by the time it is discovered, it has already reached other parts of the body. Often small cell cancers are in other organs even before it shows up on imaging tests. "

[http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/24432.html]

Rae, unfortunately, as I said yesterday, higher grade (i.e. more aggressive) tumours grow much more rapidly and by the time they turn sarcomatoid it's a different ball-game. Happily, yours only had "sarcomatoid features which is why your path report showed Fuhrman grade 3. In contrast mine had already become mostly sarcomatoid, hence grade 4 and probably growing so fast that in only about 3 months or so I have a new tumour.

Texas_wedge said:

Growth rate
Lucky boy (and may your luck hold out forever)!

But I suppose that it does really matter Gary. Fox remarked that Alice had asked a good question and that's right, though perhaps not so much for the reason that prompted Alice's asking it (it's probably a vain hope that we can guess what led to our cancer. I had the same thought which was why it was the first question I asked my Urologist).

The importance of having some idea of the answer is in the prognosis. If the rate of growth suddenly accelerated or the whole thing developed over a short space of time, the implications are pretty clear, even after it's been removed. More frequent and fastidious subsequent monitoring is called for in that situation to catch the likely recurrence early.

It's great to have your smiling (actually usually grinning) face still around here because you're not at much risk of further problems and we're all glad it didn't turn out otherwise.

jhsu said:

The recurrent nodule in my right lung grew from 0.9cm in 06/2009 to 1.0cm measured by CT before got it wedged out in 05/2010. And the actual size from the final pathology report I vaguely remember was 1.2cm. Just for your reference, I guess everyone is somewhat different. My RCC is type 3 grade.

Jon