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

alice124
alice124 Member Posts: 896 Member
As I've stated before, I find a lot of value to this board and one of the many values is it makes you think. In reading some of the other links where people discuss possible contributors to their cancer, I noticed some people assign age to their tumors, e.g., "doctor says I've had for four years," etc.

None of John's doctors ever mentioned how long his cancer has been around, and I assumed it was something that could not be determined. Can it be determined? If it could, it would allow us to flashback and try to come up with things that may have contributed to cancer. I've googled to try and find out but have had no success.
«1

Comments

  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798
    Age of tumour
    There's guesswork involved here Alice but it's reckoned that for most tumours the growth is about 1/3 to 1/2 cm per year. However, some cancers are more aggressive than that and grow quite a bit more rapidly and that probably includes your Husband's since it showed sarcomatoid features.
  • Bennette
    Bennette Member Posts: 65
    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
  • Limelife50
    Limelife50 Member Posts: 476
    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

    Rate of growth
    From what I have been told RCC ttumors Average 1CM per year with grade 1 tumors growing a little slower I think this is because grade one ttumors cells are smaller where as grade 4 tumors cells are twice as big which would explaiin the more progressive grwoth of a grade 4 tumor.
  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798

    Rate of growth
    From what I have been told RCC ttumors Average 1CM per year with grade 1 tumors growing a little slower I think this is because grade one ttumors cells are smaller where as grade 4 tumors cells are twice as big which would explaiin the more progressive grwoth of a grade 4 tumor.

    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 <3.5 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"
  • cindygodfrey2
    cindygodfrey2 Member Posts: 70

    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 <3.5 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>

    rate of growth
    My husband was just diagnosed with a tumor a few days ago and his urological oncologist told him he has probably had this for approximately 10 to 12 years. He has about 8cm tumor.
  • Limelife50
    Limelife50 Member Posts: 476

    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 <3.5 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>

    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.
  • Beingbless
    Beingbless Member Posts: 46

    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.

    Grade and type of cancer
    I just removed a clear type and stage 1 grade2 cancer 5 cm tumor, the surgeon said it should take about 4 to 5 years period to develop.

    So, it's all depend on type, grade and stage/size of the tumor.
  • Beingbless
    Beingbless Member Posts: 46

    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.

    Grade and type of cancer
    I just removed a clear type and stage 1 grade2 cancer 5 cm tumor, the surgeon said it should take about 4 to 5 years period to develop.

    So, it's all depend on type, grade and stage/size of the tumor.
  • Beingbless
    Beingbless Member Posts: 46

    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.

    Grade and type of cancer
    I just removed a clear type and stage 1 grade2 cancer 5 cm tumor, the surgeon said it should take about 4 to 5 years period to develop.

    So, it's all depend on type, grade and stage/size of the tumor.
  • foxhd
    foxhd Member Posts: 3,181

    Grade and type of cancer
    I just removed a clear type and stage 1 grade2 cancer 5 cm tumor, the surgeon said it should take about 4 to 5 years period to develop.

    So, it's all depend on type, grade and stage/size of the tumor.

    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.
  • rae_rae
    rae_rae Member Posts: 300
    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.

    growth rate
    I had an ultrasound in 2000 after suffering my second, and last, gallbladder attack, and subsequently had my gallladder removed in Nov of 2000. I remember they reported a small cyst on one of my kidneys then, I just don't remember if it was my left. I then had a CT scan (my first ever) in 2001 for kidney stones and nothing unusual was found, other than the stones.

    I had a 9cm tumor removed in 2010, so at some point between 2001 and 2010 it started to grow. It was furhman grade 3 (3-4 is what I was told, I like to believe it was a 3).
  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798
    rae_rae said:

    growth rate
    I had an ultrasound in 2000 after suffering my second, and last, gallbladder attack, and subsequently had my gallladder removed in Nov of 2000. I remember they reported a small cyst on one of my kidneys then, I just don't remember if it was my left. I then had a CT scan (my first ever) in 2001 for kidney stones and nothing unusual was found, other than the stones.

    I had a 9cm tumor removed in 2010, so at some point between 2001 and 2010 it started to grow. It was furhman grade 3 (3-4 is what I was told, I like to believe it was a 3).

    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.
  • garym
    garym Member Posts: 1,647

    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.

    Growth rate...
    Mine was around the 5.0cm mark and the doc said it had been there for at least 2 years and probably a lot longer. It stopped growing almost 2 1/2 years ago when they took it out, not much else matters to me.
  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798
    garym said:

    Growth rate...
    Mine was around the 5.0cm mark and the doc said it had been there for at least 2 years and probably a lot longer. It stopped growing almost 2 1/2 years ago when they took it out, not much else matters to me.

    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.
  • garym
    garym Member Posts: 1,647

    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.

    Growth rate
    As I re-read my post, I see where you are coming from. It is an important and common question, I asked it myself, and I meant no disrespect. The answer I got was just so non-specific that it left me with feelings of spilt milk I guess. My apologies.
  • jhsu
    jhsu Member Posts: 80
    garym said:

    Growth rate
    As I re-read my post, I see where you are coming from. It is an important and common question, I asked it myself, and I meant no disrespect. The answer I got was just so non-specific that it left me with feelings of spilt milk I guess. My apologies.

    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
  • icemantoo
    icemantoo Member Posts: 3,359 Member
    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

    How old is that tumor?
    This is one of those questions they give for board certification of Urologists. Each year the Urologists in training study and memorize the correct answers from the year before for each type and size of Tumor. Each year the questions remain exactly the same, but the answers change as a result of new reseach and studies. Those Urologists who give lasts years corrct answers flunk that part of the test.


    PS The doctors in ecoomics have the same problem on their finals. Every year the questions remain the same, but last years answers are no longer valid.
  • livealive
    livealive Member Posts: 127
    icemantoo said:

    How old is that tumor?
    This is one of those questions they give for board certification of Urologists. Each year the Urologists in training study and memorize the correct answers from the year before for each type and size of Tumor. Each year the questions remain exactly the same, but the answers change as a result of new reseach and studies. Those Urologists who give lasts years corrct answers flunk that part of the test.


    PS The doctors in ecoomics have the same problem on their finals. Every year the questions remain the same, but last years answers are no longer valid.

    way to determine how long primary tumor has been around
    If you did CT's for a few years, and can measure at each CT - then yes, you could determine rate of growth. If not, there is no definitive way of telling. The rest is all inferential or hypothetical.
  • alice124
    alice124 Member Posts: 896 Member
    livealive said:

    way to determine how long primary tumor has been around
    If you did CT's for a few years, and can measure at each CT - then yes, you could determine rate of growth. If not, there is no definitive way of telling. The rest is all inferential or hypothetical.

    way to determine how long primary tumor has been around
    Thanks for all the information and insight on this question. While it doesn't look like there's a definitive way to age John's tumors, I know more now than I did when I asked the question. Thanks everyone.
  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798
    alice124 said:

    way to determine how long primary tumor has been around
    Thanks for all the information and insight on this question. While it doesn't look like there's a definitive way to age John's tumors, I know more now than I did when I asked the question. Thanks everyone.

    age of primary tumour
    Yes, Raj, that's the way to go about it and that's how the conclusion has been arrived at that, on average, tumours grow at 1/3 to 1/2 cm. p.a. but with a fairly wide variation.

    It's interesting to see that Jon's apparently grew 0.3 cm. in 11 months - bang on the average.

    4 hours ago I was told by a consultant that I might have had my tumour for 30 years - he volunteered that information during a consultation. He also confirmed that rate of tumour growth has nothing at all to do with cell size. Grade 3 and 4 tumours could be expected to grow faster, particularly when sarcomatoid, but that has no connection whatever with cell size.