Mets Day 1136: More analysis of my May 5 CT scan: CR?

Last week Dr. Aygun at Johns Hopkins did a supplemental interpretation of my May 5 CT scan of my neck. It was posted on May 17, but I've been visiting family in Utah since May 14, and between my niece's wedding and the birth of my granddaughter, I didn't notice it until yesterday. Here's the text of the report (I've added hyperlinks):

RESULT: This report is dictated with specific measurement of index lesions as RECIST 1.1. Longest unidimensional measurement in mm for non-nodal disease. Short axis measurements for nodes.

Please see the original clinical report of the CT scan of the neck from 5/5/2015.

COMPARISON: 3/24/2015.

TARGET LESIONS:
TL1: Left level 5 lymph node measures 5 x 5 mm at slice position 335.7 compared to 9 x 12 mm previously.

TL2: Left level 4 lymph node measures 5 x 5 mm at slice position 362.7 compared to 7 x 9 mm previously.

NON-TARGET LESIONS: None

NEW LESIONS: None

IMPRESSION: CR (in the neck). All nodal target lesions are less than 10 mm.

Dr Aygun's results are dramatically different than the original interpretation of my May 5 scan by Dr. Idowu. In the initial results, Dr. Idowu wrote that "the left level 4 lymph node previously measuring 1.3 x 0.9 cm currently measures 1.3 x 0.7 cm." But according to Dr. Aygun's supplemental read, the left level 4 node previously was 7 x 9 mm (not 1.3 x 9 cm), and now measures 5 x 5 mm (not 1.3 x 7 cm). I do not understand how two different radiologists, looking at the exact same image, can conclude that the same tumor is either 1.3 x 0.7 cm, or 5 x 5 mm. That's a 50% difference!

In addition, Dr. Idowu, the radiologist who initially read the May 5 scan, looked at tumors on the left side of my neck at levels 3 and 4. Dr. Idowu wrote that the left level 3 lymph node previously measuring 1.5 x 1.1 cm currently measures 1.4 x 0.8 cm. Dr. Aygun did not measure that level 3 node, and simply wrote that there were no non-target lesions. How could a tumor be measured to be 1.4 x 8 mm by one doctor simply be missed by the second doctor?

Dr. Aygun has concluded that I have had "CR": a complete response (in the neck). But when I asked Dr. Hahn the same question at my last visit, he told me that it was too soon to say that I had a complete response, although he agreed that the short axis of my tumors was under 1.0 cm, so they were not "pathological" under the RECIST 1.1 guidelines. But he was unwilling to go as far as Dr. Aygun.

Although Dr. Aygun's reading would ordinarily be great news, I have a healthy level of skepticism over the results. I'll be asking Dr. Hahn some questions about this at my next appointment on May 28.