ABSTRACT
Purpose The determination of the size of a renal tumor is important for staging, prognosis and selection of the appropriate surgical treatment. We investigated the difference of radiographic and pathologic size of renal tumors in a contemporary cohort of patients who underwent nephron sparing surgery and evaluated its clinical implications. Materials and Methods The records of 169 patients who received nephron sparing surgery for renal lesions suspicious for malignancy between January 2006 and December 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Radiographic tumor size, defined as the largest diameter of tumor measured by CT images, and pathologic size, the largest diameter of tumor measured in the surgical specimen, were compared and analyzed. Results Among all subjects, mean radiographic and pathologic tumor size were 3.25 ± 1.78 cm and 3.03 ± 1.91 cm, respectively (P < 0.001), with a discrepancy of just 0.22 cm. When the patients were categorized according to radiographic tumor size in the 1 cm range, the mean radiographic tumor size was significantly greater than pathologic tumor size in the following groups: 2 to 3 cm (P < 0.001), 3 to 4 cm (P < 0.001), and 4 to 5 cm (P = 0.028). When radiographic and pathologic tumor sizes were compared according to the pathologic tumor subtype, a significant difference was observed only among those with clear cell renal carcinoma (P < 0.001). Conclusions Renal tumor size was overestimated by radiography as compared with pathology. The difference was just 0.22 cm with little clinical significance, suggesting that CT provides an accurate method to estimate renal tumor size preoperatively. .