PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical value of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a recent 3 years seven RCCs in six patients were treated by percutaneous RFA. RCC had been diagnosed based on the typical findings by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. A cool-tip RF system (Vallylab) was mainly used with a RF2000 generator. The maximum tumor size ranged from 8 to 40 mm in diameter. The follow-up period was 14-36 months after initial RFA treatment. RESULTS: Complete disappearance of contrast enhancement during the early arterial phase was noted immediately after each session of percutaneous RFA. Two RCCs > or = 3 cm in diameter showed tumor recurrence and required re-RFA during the follow-up period. In one patient, retroperitoneal hematoma was observed as a noteworthy complication. CONCLUSION: Despite our limited number of patients, we believe that percutaneous RFA is clinically feasible and can be an alternative treatment of choice for RCC.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical value of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a recent 3 years seven RCCs in six patients were treated by percutaneous RFA. RCC had been diagnosed based on the typical findings by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. A cool-tip RF system (Vallylab) was mainly used with a RF2000 generator. The maximum tumor size ranged from 8 to 40 mm in diameter. The follow-up period was 14-36 months after initial RFA treatment. RESULTS: Complete disappearance of contrast enhancement during the early arterial phase was noted immediately after each session of percutaneous RFA. Two RCCs > or = 3 cm in diameter showed tumor recurrence and required re-RFA during the follow-up period. In one patient, retroperitoneal hematoma was observed as a noteworthy complication. CONCLUSION: Despite our limited number of patients, we believe that percutaneous RFA is clinically feasible and can be an alternative treatment of choice for RCC.
Authors: Shuvro H Roy-Choudhury; James E I Cast; Graeme Cooksey; Shama Puri; David J Breen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kenneth Ogan; Lucas Jacomides; Bart L Dolmatch; Frank J Rivera; Marco F Dellaria; Shellie C Josephs; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: Urology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Kamran Ahrar; Surena Matin; Christopher G Wood; Michael J Wallace; Sanjay Gupta; David C Madoff; Sujaya Rao; Nizar M Tannir; Eric Jonasch; Louis L Pisters; Marc A Rozner; Debra L Kennamer; Marshall E Hicks Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: M A Farrell; W J Charboneau; D S DiMarco; G K Chow; H Zincke; M R Callstrom; B D Lewis; R A Lee; C C Reading Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: William W Mayo-Smith; Damian E Dupuy; Pranay M Parikh; John A Pezzullo; John J Cronan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Debra A Gervais; Francis J McGovern; Ronald S Arellano; W Scott McDougal; Peter R Mueller Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105