Table 9 Summary of previous studies comparing mean radiological and mean pathological renal tumor sizes.
From: Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses
Author | Year | N | Mean CT size (mm) ‡ | Mean Path size (mm) | Mean δ (mm) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Herr[35] | 1999 | 50 | N/A | N/A | 6.3 | 0.001 |
Herr et al[34] | 2001 | 87 | 34 | 27 | 7.4 | N/A |
Irani[33] †| 2001 | 100 | 70.0 | 60.0 | 10.0 | 0.005 |
Yaycioglu[32] | 2002 | 291 | 54 | 53 | 1.0 | 0.17 |
Schlomer[31] | 2006 | 133 | 44.7 | 41.4 | 3.3 | 0.35 |
Kanofsky[30] | 2006 | 198 | 51.1 | 49.2 | 1.9 | N/A |
Mistry[29] | 2008 | 106 | 49.9 | 47.4 | 2.5 | 0.70 |
Kurta[28] | 2008 | 521 | 47.9 | 46.9 | 1.0 | 0.02 |
Alicioglu[27] | 2009 | 35 | 75.0 | 62.5 | 12.5 | 0.452 |
Ates[26] | 2010 | 86 | 63.3 | 64.3 | -1.0 | 0.342 |
Choi[25] | 2010 | 175 | 49.8 | 45.5 | 4.3 | 0.152 |
Lee[24] | 2010 | 467 | 45.6 | 44.9 | 0.7 | 0.399 |
Jeffery | 2010 | 157 | 58.3 | 55.2 | 3.1 | 0.012 |