O Rodriguez Faba1, F Sanguedolce2, P Grange2, G Kooiman2, A Bakavicius3, P De la Torre4, J Palou4. 1. Department of Urology and Radiology, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain. orodriguez@fundacio-puigvert.es. 2. King's College Hospital, London, UK. 3. Department of Urology, Vilnius University Hospital Santariskiu Klinikos, Vilnius, Lithuania. 4. Department of Urology and Radiology, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the current indications and surgical and survival outcomes for cryoablation (CA) using either a percutaneous (PCA) or a laparoscopic approach (LCA). We also investigated the ability of the PADUA score to predict the risk of complications and local recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed at two European tertiary referral centers. Parameters analyzed included size, location, approach, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and functional and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. An ROC analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the PADUA score. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included. Mean tumor size was 2.6 cm. PCA was more often performed in posterior (95 vs. 60 %), inferior (72 vs. 32 %), and lateral (87 vs. 55 %) tumors. The global complication rate was 8.75 %, although proximity to the renal sinus resulted in a higher rate (30 vs. 4 %). Mean follow-up was 34 and 23 months for LCA and PCA, respectively. The 5-year recurrence-free survival was 76 and 90 % for LCA and PCA, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor involvement of the collecting system was predictive of recurrence. Under ROC analysis, PADUA score was a mild predictor for complications (AUC = 0.601) and a good predictor for recurrence (AUC = 0.723); PADUA ≥8 was identified as a cutoff for patients to a higher risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The percutaneous approach is confirmed to be the preferred CA technique for posterior and lateral tumors. CA in deeper renal lesions and tumors with PADUA score ≥8 might entail a higher risk of recurrence, and closer follow-up should be considered in these patients.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the current indications and surgical and survival outcomes for cryoablation (CA) using either a percutaneous (PCA) or a laparoscopic approach (LCA). We also investigated the ability of the PADUA score to predict the risk of complications and local recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed at two European tertiary referral centers. Parameters analyzed included size, location, approach, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and functional and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. An ROC analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the PADUA score. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included. Mean tumor size was 2.6 cm. PCA was more often performed in posterior (95 vs. 60 %), inferior (72 vs. 32 %), and lateral (87 vs. 55 %) tumors. The global complication rate was 8.75 %, although proximity to the renal sinus resulted in a higher rate (30 vs. 4 %). Mean follow-up was 34 and 23 months for LCA and PCA, respectively. The 5-year recurrence-free survival was 76 and 90 % for LCA and PCA, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor involvement of the collecting system was predictive of recurrence. Under ROC analysis, PADUA score was a mild predictor for complications (AUC = 0.601) and a good predictor for recurrence (AUC = 0.723); PADUA ≥8 was identified as a cutoff for patients to a higher risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The percutaneous approach is confirmed to be the preferred CA technique for posterior and lateral tumors. CA in deeper renal lesions and tumors with PADUA score ≥8 might entail a higher risk of recurrence, and closer follow-up should be considered in these patients.
Authors: S Nahum Goldberg; Clement J Grassi; John F Cardella; J William Charboneau; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra Gervais; Alice R Gillams; Robert A Kane; Fred T Lee; Tito Livraghi; John McGahan; David A Phillips; Hyunchul Rhim; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: O Rodríguez-Faba; J Palou; A Rosales; P de la Torre; J Martí; A Palazzetti; H Villavicencio Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Khalid Badwan; Keegan Maxwell; Ramakrishna Venkatesh; Robert S Figenshau; Dan Brown; Cathy Chen; Sam B Bhayani Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Michael L Blute; Zhamshid Okhunov; Daniel M Moreira; Arvin K George; Suzanne Sunday; Igor I Lobko; Manish A Vira Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Gladwin C Hui; Kemal Tuncali; Servet Tatli; Paul R Morrison; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-07-21 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Matvey Tsivian; Edward N Rampersaud; Maria del Pilar Laguna Pes; Steven Joniau; Raymond J Leveillee; William B Shingleton; Monish Aron; Charles Y Kim; Angelo M DeMarzo; Mihir M Desai; James D Meler; James F Donovan; Hans Christoph Klingler; David R Sopko; John F Madden; Michael Marberger; Michael N Ferrandino; Thomas J Polascik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.588