Jason Martin1, Sriharsha Athreya. 1. From the Department of Radiology (J.M.), McMaster University Michael G. Degroote School of Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; the Department of Radiology (S.A. e-mail: sathreya@stjoes.ca), St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare local and metastatic recurrence of small renal masses primarily treated by cryoablation or microwave ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PUBMED databases were searched to review the treatment of small renal masses with cryoablation or microwave ablation. Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies representing 3950 kidney lesions were analyzed. No differences were detected in the mean patient age (P = 0.150) or duration of follow-up (P = 0.070). The mean tumor size was significantly larger in the microwave ablation group compared with the cryoablation group (P = 0.030). There was no difference between microwave ablation and cryoablation groups in terms of primary effectiveness (93.75% vs. 91.27%, respectively; P = 0.400), cancer-specific survival (98.27% vs. 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.470), local tumor progression (4.07% vs. 2.53%, respectively; P = 0.460), or progression to metastatic disease (0.8% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.120). Patient age was predictive of overall complications in the multivariate analysis (P = 0.020). Local tumor progression with cryoablation was predicted by the mean follow-up duration using univariate (P = 0.009) and multivariate regression (P = 0.003). Clear cell and angiomyolipoma were more frequent in the microwave ablation group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.03328, respectively), and papillary, chromophobe, and oncocytoma were more frequent in the cryoablation group (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.0004, respectively). Open access was used more often in the microwave ablation group than in the cryoablation group (12.20% vs. 1.04%, respectively; P < 0.0001), and percutaneous access was used more frequently in the cryoablation group than in the microwave ablation group (88.64% vs. 37.20%, respectively; P = 0.0021). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in local or metastatic recurrence between cryoablation- and microwave ablation-treated small renal masses.
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare local and metastatic recurrence of small renal masses primarily treated by cryoablation or microwave ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PUBMED databases were searched to review the treatment of small renal masses with cryoablation or microwave ablation. Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies representing 3950 kidney lesions were analyzed. No differences were detected in the mean patient age (P = 0.150) or duration of follow-up (P = 0.070). The mean tumor size was significantly larger in the microwave ablation group compared with the cryoablation group (P = 0.030). There was no difference between microwave ablation and cryoablation groups in terms of primary effectiveness (93.75% vs. 91.27%, respectively; P = 0.400), cancer-specific survival (98.27% vs. 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.470), local tumor progression (4.07% vs. 2.53%, respectively; P = 0.460), or progression to metastatic disease (0.8% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.120). Patient age was predictive of overall complications in the multivariate analysis (P = 0.020). Local tumor progression with cryoablation was predicted by the mean follow-up duration using univariate (P = 0.009) and multivariate regression (P = 0.003). Clear cell and angiomyolipoma were more frequent in the microwave ablation group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.03328, respectively), and papillary, chromophobe, and oncocytoma were more frequent in the cryoablation group (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.0004, respectively). Open access was used more often in the microwave ablation group than in the cryoablation group (12.20% vs. 1.04%, respectively; P < 0.0001), and percutaneous access was used more frequently in the cryoablation group than in the microwave ablation group (88.64% vs. 37.20%, respectively; P = 0.0021). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in local or metastatic recurrence between cryoablation- and microwave ablation-treated small renal masses.
Authors: Clinton Yeaman; Rebecca Marchant; Jennifer M Lobo; Anthony DeNovio; Lauren O'Connor; Tanya Wanchek; Christopher Ballantyne; Drew L Lambert; Ayman Mithqal; Noah Schenkman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-10-09
Authors: Arian Mansur; Tushar Garg; Apurva Shrigiriwar; Vahid Etezadi; Christos Georgiades; Peiman Habibollahi; Timothy C Huber; Juan C Camacho; Sherif G Nour; Alan Alper Sag; John David Prologo; Nariman Nezami Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Chiara Floridi; Irene De Bernardi; Federico Fontana; Alessandra Muollo; Anna Maria Ierardi; Andrea Agostini; Paolo Fonio; Ettore Squillaci; Luca Brunese; Carlo Fugazzola; Gianpaolo Carrafiello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Petr Dvorak; Petr Hoffmann; Milos Brodak; Josef Kosina; Jaroslav Pacovsky; Jan Raupach; Antonin Krajina Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 1.195