Cystic? Random question...

jason.2835
jason.2835 Member Posts: 337 Member
in Kidney Cancer #1

Hello, again. 

Just thought of a random question, wonder if anyone has the answer.  My pathology report said that my tumor was "partially cystic," but didn't elaborate further. I know that there is a subtype called multilocular cystic RCC, but the path report did not mention this in the least; it just said I had clear cell RCC. Has anyone had any experience with this? I know that the prognosis of MCRCC is generally excellent; like, so excellent that there are no cases of it becoming metastatic (?). Does anybody think it is worth getting a second opinion on the pathology to ensure I don't have this subtype? Or is a partially cystic CCRCC tumor a common thing?

Comments

  • foxhd
    foxhd Member Posts: 3,181 Member
    #2
    partially cystic

    My interpretation would be that there exists a small void that was identified. There was some cell death at the lesion. Tissue has broken down and there is no longer a solid basis in that area. Could be necrosis of tumor or renal tissue. Second you may have an encapsulated mass with identifiable borders which could have separation from the rest of the kidney. It is only a description. I don't think there is any associated pathology with it. ..Be happy,..don't worry,..

  • jason.2835
    jason.2835 Member Posts: 337 Member
    #3
    foxhd said:

    partially cystic

    My interpretation would be that there exists a small void that was identified. There was some cell death at the lesion. Tissue has broken down and there is no longer a solid basis in that area. Could be necrosis of tumor or renal tissue. Second you may have an encapsulated mass with identifiable borders which could have separation from the rest of the kidney. It is only a description. I don't think there is any associated pathology with it. ..Be happy,..don't worry,..

    Thanks

    Haha thank you, bobby mcferrin Fox. It did say no necrosis was present as well. All in all I was very happy with the path report, even if is CCRCC. I just wanted to make sure I was diagnosed correctly. But in the end I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot. 

  • foroughsh
    foroughsh Member Posts: 779 Member
    #4
    foxhd said:

    partially cystic

    My interpretation would be that there exists a small void that was identified. There was some cell death at the lesion. Tissue has broken down and there is no longer a solid basis in that area. Could be necrosis of tumor or renal tissue. Second you may have an encapsulated mass with identifiable borders which could have separation from the rest of the kidney. It is only a description. I don't think there is any associated pathology with it. ..Be happy,..don't worry,..

    My pathology report also

    My pathology report also says. It's cyctic, and there are some areas of necrosis in the pole. I think it's not good to have the word "necrosis" in pathology report. Am I right? What does it mean?

  • jason.2835
    jason.2835 Member Posts: 337 Member
    #5
    foroughsh said:

    My pathology report also

    My pathology report also says. It's cyctic, and there are some areas of necrosis in the pole. I think it's not good to have the word "necrosis" in pathology report. Am I right? What does it mean?

    Necrosis

    There seems to be some disagreement among medical sources regarding necrosis. I have read some articles which state that necrosis can be a sign of a faster growing, aggressive cancer. However, i have also read that necrosis is simply a tumor losing access to the blood supply, and that's not a bad thing. It seems that more recently, medical professionals do not believe that necrosis has much bearing on most prognostic factors. 

  • foxhd
    foxhd Member Posts: 3,181 Member
    #6
    jason.2835 said:

    Necrosis

    There seems to be some disagreement among medical sources regarding necrosis. I have read some articles which state that necrosis can be a sign of a faster growing, aggressive cancer. However, i have also read that necrosis is simply a tumor losing access to the blood supply, and that's not a bad thing. It seems that more recently, medical professionals do not believe that necrosis has much bearing on most prognostic factors. 

    Those 2 reasons

    are the same. Necrosis can be a sign of a faster growing tumor. And because it is growing faster, it needs more blood. But the blood supply can't provide the blood fast enough. So tumor in that area dies off. Repeat.

Discussion Boards