Literature DB >> 25846416

Oncologic Efficacy of Radio Frequency Ablation for Small Renal Masses: Clear Cell vs Papillary Subtype.

Aaron H Lay1, Stephen Faddegon1, Ephrem O Olweny1, Monica Morgan1, Gideon Lorber1, Clayton Trimmer1, Raymond Leveillee1, Jeffrey A Cadeddu2, Jeffrey C Gahan1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Current radio frequency ablation series do not distinguish renal cell carcinoma subtypes when reporting oncologic efficacy. Papillary neoplasms may be more amenable to radio frequency ablation than clear cell carcinoma because they are less vascular, which may limit heat energy loss. We report the long-term outcomes of patients treated with radio frequency ablation for small renal masses by renal cell carcinoma subtype.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of patients undergoing radio frequency ablation for small renal masses (cT1a) at 2 institutions from March 2007 to July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included in analysis if they had biopsy confirmed clear cell or papillary renal cell carcinoma histology. Patients had at least 1 contrast enhanced cross-sectional image following radio frequency ablation. Demographic data between tumor subtypes were compared using the paired t-test. Oncologic outcomes were determined by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and survivor curves were compared with the log rank test.
RESULTS: A total of 229 patients met study inclusion criteria. There were 181 clear cell tumors and 48 papillary tumors. Median followup was 33.2 months. There was no difference between tumor groups based on patient age, tumor size or grade, or months of followup. Five-year disease-free survival was 89.7% for clear cell tumors and 100% for papillary tumors (p = 0.041). There was no significant difference in overall survival (88.4% vs 89.6%, p = 0.764).
CONCLUSIONS: Radio frequency ablation outcomes seem to be determined in part by renal cell carcinoma subtype with clear cell renal tumors having less favorable outcomes. We hypothesize that this is due to differences in tumor vascularity. Our experience suggests that future tumor ablation studies should consider reporting outcomes based on tumor cell types.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  carcinoma; catheter ablation; kidney; outcome and process assessment (health care); papillary; renal cell

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25846416     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  10 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  Local ablation vs partial nephrectomy in T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Authors:  Lei Shi; Yan He; Chang Liu; Xiaoyuan Qian; Zhixian Wang
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-09-05       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 4.  Focal ablation therapy for renal cancer in the era of active surveillance and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Serge Ginzburg; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Alexander Kutikov
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  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 6.  Diagnosis and Treatment of Small Renal Masses: Where Do We Stand?

Authors:  Jerez Izquierdo Tamara; Gómez Rivas Juan; Zondervan Jeannelle Patricia; Vives Dilme Roser; Rodriguez Moisés; Enikeev Dmitry; Serrano Pascual Álvaro; Moreno Sierra Jesús
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Current Management of Small Renal Masses, Including Patient Selection, Renal Tumor Biopsy, Active Surveillance, and Thermal Ablation.

Authors:  Alejandro Sanchez; Adam S Feldman; A Ari Hakimi
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Prognostic Value of Histologic Subtype and Treatment Modality for T1a Kidney Cancers.

Authors:  Michael Siev; Audrey Renson; Hung-Jui Tan; Tracy L Rose; Stella K Kang; William C Huang; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Kidney Cancer       Date:  2020-03-30

9.  Irreversible electroporation in renal tumours: A systematic review of safety and early oncological outcomes.

Authors:  Aidan Hilton; Georgios Kourounis; Fanourios Georgiades
Journal:  Urologia       Date:  2022-02-10

Review 10.  Applications of Focused Ultrasound in the Treatment of Genitourinary Cancers.

Authors:  John Panzone; Timothy Byler; Gennady Bratslavsky; Hanan Goldberg
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.