Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses

flatlander said:

thanks
Thanks for the article. I found out that MRI and ultrasound said mine was about 4cm. However a couple months later it was 8cm when they cut it out. So article tells me it may not be a fast grower, just not exact science when judging sizes.

Measurements
flatlander - it's good to see you back but I'm sorry you've had such a hard time. I hope you're getting back to full fitness and strength after your seemingly never-ending ordeal.

Looking at the scattergram (Figure 1) in the article you can see that the means that the researchers came up with are pretty uninformative. To me, the important finding is in the variability of the comparisons. In some cases, the measurements were out by 100% or even more. In those cases, the CT scan result could have led to a significant misclassification of size and possibly wrong decisions on treatment. The authors note the numerous shortcomings of their study, to which one can add the lack of consideration of the changes in scanner technology over the period of investigation and the lack of reference to the use of contrast.

So, you're right that the discrepancy in your case may not have reliably indicated a fast grower and may have just been a measurement error, rather than a volume increase of about 700%. Actually the same applies to mine - 8cm -> 9 cm. is a more than 40% increase in volume, which might look like fast growth in 6 weeks (though I suppose a recurrence from 0 -> 2.5cm in 4 months supports the interpretation of an aggressive growth).

I suppose it should be noted that the article Georjean cited was dealing with CT scans whereas your scans were by MRI and US.

Nobody needs to tell you to keep soldiering on and if you can keep us posted on your progress, many of us will be glad to hear.