Literature DB >> 25704992

Laparoscopic vs percutaneous cryoablation for the small renal mass: 15-year experience at a single center.

Homayoun Zargar1, Dinesh Samarasekera1, Ali Khalifeh1, Erick M Remer2, Charles O'Malley3, Oktay Akca1, Riccardo Autorino1, Jihad H Kaouk4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze our 15-year experience with small renal masses ablation and present oncologic and functional outcomes of laparoscopic cryoablation (LCA) and percutaneous cryoablation (PCA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent LCA (n = 275) or PCA (n = 137) for small renal masses between 1997 and 2012. Differences in overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed using a log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard ratios model was used to determine factors that predicted OS. Fit proportional hazard risk ratios were also calculated to determine if there were any factors that affected tumor recurrence.
RESULTS: Tumor sizes were equal between the 2 groups; however, tumors in the PCA group were more complex. The overall (7.27% and 7.29%) and major complications (0.7% and 3.6%) were similar. The estimated probability of 5-year OS for LCA and PCA was 89% and 82%, respectively. The estimated probability of the 5-year RFS for LCA and PCA was 79% and 80%, respectively. Heart disease (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.41; P = .001) and history of disease recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-3.86; P = .001; P <.0001) were predictors of death. The median follow-up time for the LCA group (4.41 years [1.67-6.91 years]) was longer than the PCA group (3.15 years [1.37-4.08 years]; P = .0001).
CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in OS or RFS at 5 years between the 2 groups. Tumor size and anterior location affected local recurrence rates, and these factors should be taken into consideration when choosing the appropriate treatment plan. RENAL nephrometry score or type of cryoablation was not associated with tumor recurrence.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25704992     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  19 in total

Review 1.  Contemporary Status of Percutaneous Ablation for the Small Renal Mass.

Authors:  Benjamin J Shin; Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick; S William Stavropoulos
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Organ-sparing procedures in GU cancer: part 1-organ-sparing procedures in renal and adrenal tumors: a systematic review.

Authors:  Raouf Seyam; Mahmoud I Khalil; Mohamed H Kamel; Waleed M Altaweel; Rodney Davis; Nabil K Bissada
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Computed Tomography Perfusion, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Histopathological Findings After Laparoscopic Renal Cryoablation: An In Vivo Pig Model.

Authors:  Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen; Øyvind Østraat; Ole Graumann; Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen; Gratien Andersen; Søren Høyer; Michael Borre
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-07-11

Review 4.  Ablative Therapies for the Treatment of Small Renal Masses: a Review of Different Modalities and Outcomes.

Authors:  Nicholas Kavoussi; Noah Canvasser; Jeffrey Caddedu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Impact of tumor histology and grade on treatment success of percutaneous renal cryoablation.

Authors:  Alp Tuna Beksac; Gerant Rivera-Sanfeliz; Catherine A Dufour; Unwanaobong Nseyo; Zachary Hamilton; Sean W Berquist; Abd-elRahman Hassan; Omer A Raheem; Song Wang; Robert W Wake; Robert E Gold; Ithaar H Derweesh
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Percutaneous image-guided cryoablation: current applications and results in the oncologic field.

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

7.  Irreversible electroporation of small renal masses: suboptimal oncologic efficacy in an early series.

Authors:  Noah E Canvasser; Igor Sorokin; Aaron H Lay; Monica S C Morgan; Asim Ozayar; Clayton Trimmer; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Systematic Review of Contemporary Evidence for the Management of T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma: What IRs Need to Know for Kidney Cancer Tumor Boards.

Authors:  Julie Cronan; Sean Dariushnia; Zachary Bercu; Robert Mitchell Ermentrout; Bill Majdalany; Laura Findeiss; Janice Newsome; Nima Kokabi
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 9.  Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Zachary L Smith
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Radiofrequency ablation versus cryoablation for T1b renal cell carcinoma: a multi-center study.

Authors:  Takaaki Hasegawa; Takashi Yamanaka; Hideo Gobara; Masaya Miyazaki; Haruyuki Takaki; Yozo Sato; Yoshitaka Inaba; Koichiro Yamakado
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 2.374

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.