To make things a little more complicated, submandibular nodes tend to naturally rounded.
I've just been discussing with veryconfused about her doubled nodes, if you want to take a look at that thread. I'd suppose CT might see more sharply than US.
Well, it's too bad that the tech didn't have enough intellectual wondering to check out the double node. It is a curious thing, after all, and they might have learned something.
"I’m still confused on the 1.07cm by 0.30cm by 1.02 cm one, is the short axis there 1.02?"
"a node of 1cm or just above or below can be the regular size isn’t that the case?"
"Wouldn’t that make the node a pancake almost?"
Yes. Here is the general idea: the fatty hilum is at the edge of a node. That's the spot where the blood vessels go in and out, and also where the lymph vessel goes out, btw.
So if we envision a node as an oval, the short axis is measured from the hilum edge to the edge directly opposite. The long axis would be perpendicular. When a node is reactive, it enlarges in a controlled way, mainly by growing outward in the long axis. But when a node is cancerous, it tends to grow willy nilly, and so on average it grows equally in all directions -- therefore it grows to being eventually rounded.
HOWEVER, a not-cancer node can sometimes grow to be rounded, it just happens. That's why the behavior and the internal architecture trumps the shape - unless the node was very large like 3-4cm, then we'd have to investigate and account for why it is so big. Your 1cm is not near that, and even 2cm would still be okay. 3-4cm might be cancer, or might be filled with granulomas, or inflammatory pseudotumor IIRC.
Also, imagine a node with a new, still small cancer in it, in the left side. It would grow as a sphere, but still be growing on only one side of the node at first. So the node would be lopsided. That's why an asymmetrical node is bad. But yours are not asymmetrical, therefore that argues a lot that you do not have a new small cancer in a node.
The size alone would be concerning if they were gigantic, but since they are not gigantic we interpret them according to behavior and architecture. So yes, they seem normal.
Since nodes are normally flat, then yes the shortest dimension of a 3D would be considered the height. So in:
1.08 cm by 0.16 cm by 0.30 cm
the 0.30 cm would be the short axis.
If you ever have another US, I'd alert the tech about the 2-stuck-together so they use extra care and probably then verify that.
No. Years ago the size was considered crucial, but no more.
Roundness is an indicator, but should not over rule behavior and internal architecture (seen via scan).