PURPOSE: To evaluate our single institution experience with percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses >or=3 cm in diameter for complications and short-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 2003 and February 2009, 108 patients with 110 renal masses >or=3 cm in diameter were treated with percutaneous cryoablation therapy. Technical success of the ablation procedure, complications, and evidence for local tumor recurrence were evaluated for each patient. RESULTS: Average maximal renal tumor diameter was 4.1 cm (range 3.0-8.3 cm; standard deviation 1.1 cm). A single cryoablation procedure was performed for treatment of each patient. A technically successful ablation was achieved for 107 of 110 (97%) tumors. The three technical failures all resulted from incomplete cryoablation of the deepest margin of a centrally located renal tumor. A total of 9 severe adverse events occurred in six patients, resulting in an 8% major complication rate. Two patients in whom major complications developed were part of the group of only four patients for whom ablation was performed for tumors > 7 cm in diameter. There were no procedural-related deaths. No evidence for local tumor recurrence was identified in any patients with follow-up contrast-enhanced CT or MRI obtained 3 months or longer from the time of the ablation. Follow-up in these patients averaged 15 months (range 3-42 mos). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses >or=3 cm in diameter can be performed with high technical success and low complication rates. Extra scrutiny is needed during cryoablation of central renal masses to make sure the ablation zone extends to include the deepest margin of the tumor. Although our experience is limited, percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors > 7 cm in diameter may be associated with increased complications. The lack of local renal tumor recurrences seen in this study on short-term follow-up is encouraging, but long-term follow-up remains necessary to ensure treatment durability.
PURPOSE: To evaluate our single institution experience with percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses >or=3 cm in diameter for complications and short-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 2003 and February 2009, 108 patients with 110 renal masses >or=3 cm in diameter were treated with percutaneous cryoablation therapy. Technical success of the ablation procedure, complications, and evidence for local tumor recurrence were evaluated for each patient. RESULTS: Average maximal renal tumor diameter was 4.1 cm (range 3.0-8.3 cm; standard deviation 1.1 cm). A single cryoablation procedure was performed for treatment of each patient. A technically successful ablation was achieved for 107 of 110 (97%) tumors. The three technical failures all resulted from incomplete cryoablation of the deepest margin of a centrally located renal tumor. A total of 9 severe adverse events occurred in six patients, resulting in an 8% major complication rate. Two patients in whom major complications developed were part of the group of only four patients for whom ablation was performed for tumors > 7 cm in diameter. There were no procedural-related deaths. No evidence for local tumor recurrence was identified in any patients with follow-up contrast-enhanced CT or MRI obtained 3 months or longer from the time of the ablation. Follow-up in these patients averaged 15 months (range 3-42 mos). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses >or=3 cm in diameter can be performed with high technical success and low complication rates. Extra scrutiny is needed during cryoablation of central renal masses to make sure the ablation zone extends to include the deepest margin of the tumor. Although our experience is limited, percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors > 7 cm in diameter may be associated with increased complications. The lack of local renal tumor recurrences seen in this study on short-term follow-up is encouraging, but long-term follow-up remains necessary to ensure treatment durability.
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Luigi Solbiati; Christopher L Brace; David J Breen; Matthew R Callstrom; J William Charboneau; Min-Hua Chen; Byung Ihn Choi; Thierry de Baère; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; David Gianfelice; Alice R Gillams; Fred T Lee; Edward Leen; Riccardo Lencioni; Peter J Littrup; Tito Livraghi; David S Lu; John P McGahan; Maria Franca Meloni; Boris Nikolic; Philippe L Pereira; Ping Liang; Hyunchul Rhim; Steven C Rose; Riad Salem; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Michael C Soulen; Masatoshi Tanaka; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Erich K Lang; Kan Karl Zhang; Quan Nguyen; Leann Myers; Mahamed Allaf; Ivan Colon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Julien Garnon; Nitin Ramamurthy; Guillaume Koch; Georgia Tsoumakidou; Jean Caudrelier; Francesco Arrigoni; Luigi Zugaro; Antonio Barile; Carlo Masciocchi; Afshin Gangi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: F Edward Boas; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Jeremy C Durack; Elena A Kaye; Joseph P Erinjeri; Etay Ziv; Majid Maybody; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Andrew J Gunn; Winston B Joe; Aliaksei Salei; Husameddin El Khudari; Khalid H Mahmoud; Eric Bready; Eric M Keasler; Patrick P Patten; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Ahmed K Abdel Aal Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 2.740