BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As radiologic detection of small renal masses increases, patients are increasingly offered percutaneous renal cryoablation (PRC) or transperitoneal laparoscopic renal cryoablation (TLRC). This multicenter experience compares these approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1998 and May 2010, review of our PRC and TLRC experience was performed. Patients with ≥ 12-month follow-up were included for analysis. Post-treatment surveillance consisted of laboratory studies and imaging at regular intervals. Treatment failure was considered if persistent mass enhancement or interval tumor growth was radiographically evident. Repeated biopsy and re-treatment were recommended in the event of recurrence. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent PRC and 84 patients underwent TLRC. No significant differences were noted with respect to demographic factors. Mean tumor size was 2.7 ± 1.1 cm (PRC) and 2.5 ± 0.8 (TLRC) cm (P = 0.090). Mean follow-up was 31.0 ± 15.9 months (PRC) and 42.3 ± 21.2 (TLRC) months (P = 0.008), with local tumor recurrence noted in 10/61 (16.4%) PRC and 5/84 (5.9%) TLRC (P = 0.042). For PRC, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 93.7% and 88.9%, respectively, with four patients having evidence of disease at last follow-up. DFS and OS were 91.7% and 89.3% for TLRC, with seven patients having evidence of disease at last follow-up. DFS (P = 0.654) and OS (P = 0.939) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study of well-matched cohorts, PRC had higher primary treatment failure rates than TLRC. While no differences were noted between DFS and OS, analysis is limited by intermediate follow-up. Further study is necessary to discern reasons for the higher recurrence rates in PRC and to determine what long-term consequences exist.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As radiologic detection of small renal masses increases, patients are increasingly offered percutaneous renal cryoablation (PRC) or transperitoneal laparoscopic renal cryoablation (TLRC). This multicenter experience compares these approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1998 and May 2010, review of our PRC and TLRC experience was performed. Patients with ≥ 12-month follow-up were included for analysis. Post-treatment surveillance consisted of laboratory studies and imaging at regular intervals. Treatment failure was considered if persistent mass enhancement or interval tumor growth was radiographically evident. Repeated biopsy and re-treatment were recommended in the event of recurrence. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent PRC and 84 patients underwent TLRC. No significant differences were noted with respect to demographic factors. Mean tumor size was 2.7 ± 1.1 cm (PRC) and 2.5 ± 0.8 (TLRC) cm (P = 0.090). Mean follow-up was 31.0 ± 15.9 months (PRC) and 42.3 ± 21.2 (TLRC) months (P = 0.008), with local tumor recurrence noted in 10/61 (16.4%) PRC and 5/84 (5.9%) TLRC (P = 0.042). For PRC, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 93.7% and 88.9%, respectively, with four patients having evidence of disease at last follow-up. DFS and OS were 91.7% and 89.3% for TLRC, with seven patients having evidence of disease at last follow-up. DFS (P = 0.654) and OS (P = 0.939) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study of well-matched cohorts, PRC had higher primary treatment failure rates than TLRC. While no differences were noted between DFS and OS, analysis is limited by intermediate follow-up. Further study is necessary to discern reasons for the higher recurrence rates in PRC and to determine what long-term consequences exist.
Authors: Simone L Vernez; Zhamshid Okhunov; Kamaljot Kaler; Ramy F Youssef; Rahul Dutta; Arkadiy Palvanov; Paras Shah; Kathryn Osann; David N Siegel; Igor Lobko; Louis Kavoussi; Ralph V Clayman; Jaime Landman Journal: Urology Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Christopher J Long; Daniel J Canter; Marc C Smaldone; Tianyu Li; Jay Simhan; Boris Rozenfeld; Ervin Teper; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Rosalia Viterbo; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: J J Wendler; B Friebe; D Baumunk; A Blana; T Franiel; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; T Henkel; K U Köhrmann; J Köllermann; T Kuru; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; H P Schlemmer; L Sentker; U Witzsch; U B Liehr; J Ricke; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Nils Kroeger; Uwe Zimmermann; Martin Burchardt; Arie S Belldegrun; Allan J Pantuck Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hyung Keun Kim; Jong Hyun Pyun; Jae Yoon Kim; Seung Bin Kim; Seok Cho; Sung Gu Kang; Jeong Gu Lee; Je Jong Kim; Jun Cheon; Seok Ho Kang Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2015-02-02