Three weeks ago I was diagnosed by CT with a small renal cell carcinoma in the central pole of my left kidney. I feel very well, am without symptoms and until today was waiting to be admitted to hospital for a partial nephrectomy by robotic surgery.  

This morning, however, the surgeon's secretary telephoned me to say that there had been a multi-disciplinary meeting which had decided that I do not need surgery (this is spite of the fact that the lesion is protuding from the wall of the kidney) and that I would be followed up regularly instead.

Now, I know that the hospital I would be admitted to is a centre of excellence in kidney and other surgeries, but because of COVID and other reasons is trying desperately to clear a massive backlog of cancer cases held back by the two lockdowns. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many others more in need of surgery than myself.  However I can't help but wonder what about the extent to which that influenced the change in decision.  More likely it was:

a)   because I am 73.  Although I am fit and otherwise healthy, surgery is riskier the older one is;

b)   I am asymptomatic;

c)   They disagreed about the diagnosis.

(Taken together all the above would free up another surgical bed).

Whichever, this thing is still growing inside of me. I wonder whether they'd have reached a different conclusion had I been younger?

S