Noah E Canvasser1, Igor Sorokin1, Aaron H Lay1, Monica S C Morgan1, Asim Ozayar1, Clayton Trimmer2, Jeffrey A Cadeddu3,4. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-9110, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-9110, USA. jeffrey.cadeddu@utsouthwestern.edu. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. jeffrey.cadeddu@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report on the first short-term oncologic outcomes of percutaneous irreversible electroporation for small renal masses. METHODS: Patients with cT1a renal masses treated with irreversible electroporation from April 2013 through December 2016 were reviewed. Small, low complexity tumors were generally selected for irreversible electroporation using the NanoKnife® System (Angiodynamics, Latham, NY, USA). Surveillance imaging was performed post-operatively, and survival analysis was completed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 42 tumors in 41 patients underwent irreversible electroporation. Mean tumor size was 2.0 cm with a median R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of 5. Twenty-nine patients (71%) were discharged the same day of the procedure and no major (Clavien grade II or higher) intraoperative or post-operative complications occurred. Initial treatment success rate was 93%; our three failures (7%) underwent salvage radiofrequency ablation. With a mean follow-up of 22 months, 2-year local recurrence-free survival was 83% for patients with biopsy confirmed renal cell carcinoma, 87% with biopsy confirmed or a history of renal cell carcinoma, and 92% for the intent-to-treat cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although with low morbidity, in comparison to extirpation and conventional thermal ablation technologies, irreversible electroporation has suboptimal short-term local disease control results in this series of small, low complexity tumors. Larger series and longer follow-up will determine the durability of this modality.
PURPOSE: To report on the first short-term oncologic outcomes of percutaneous irreversible electroporation for small renal masses. METHODS:Patients with cT1a renal masses treated with irreversible electroporation from April 2013 through December 2016 were reviewed. Small, low complexity tumors were generally selected for irreversible electroporation using the NanoKnife® System (Angiodynamics, Latham, NY, USA). Surveillance imaging was performed post-operatively, and survival analysis was completed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 42 tumors in 41 patients underwent irreversible electroporation. Mean tumor size was 2.0 cm with a median R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of 5. Twenty-nine patients (71%) were discharged the same day of the procedure and no major (Clavien grade II or higher) intraoperative or post-operative complications occurred. Initial treatment success rate was 93%; our three failures (7%) underwent salvage radiofrequency ablation. With a mean follow-up of 22 months, 2-year local recurrence-free survival was 83% for patients with biopsy confirmed renal cell carcinoma, 87% with biopsy confirmed or a history of renal cell carcinoma, and 92% for the intent-to-treat cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although with low morbidity, in comparison to extirpation and conventional thermal ablation technologies, irreversible electroporation has suboptimal short-term local disease control results in this series of small, low complexity tumors. Larger series and longer follow-up will determine the durability of this modality.
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Ami M Karkar; Michael I D'Angelica; Peter J Allen; Ronald P Dematteo; George I Getrajdman; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; William R Jarnagin; Yuman Fong Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-06-16 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Ephrem O Olweny; Payal Kapur; Yung K Tan; Samuel K Park; Mehrad Adibi; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: Urology Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sara L Best; Samuel K Park; Ramy F Youssef; Ramy F Yaacoub; Ephrem O Olweny; Yung K Tan; Clayton Trimmer; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
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: P Balageas; F Cornelis; Y Le Bras; R Hubrecht; J C Bernhard; J M Ferrière; A Ravaud; N Grenier Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Steffen J Diehl; Nils Rathmann; Michael Kostrzewa; Manuel Ritter; Arman Smakic; Stefan O Schoenberg; Maximilian C Kriegmair Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: F Ting; M Tran; M Böhm; A Siriwardana; P J Van Leeuwen; A M Haynes; W Delprado; R Shnier; P D Stricker Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Johann Jakob Wendler; Jens Ricke; Maciej Pech; Frank Fischbach; Julian Jürgens; Sandra Siedentopf; Albert Roessner; Markus Porsch; Daniel Baumunk; Martin Schostak; Jens Köllermann; Uwe-Bernd Liehr Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Young Eun Yoon; Hyung Ho Lee; Ki Hong Kim; Sung Yul Park; Hong Sang Moon; Seung Ryeol Lee; Young Kwon Hong; Dong Soo Park; Dae Keun Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Tze Min Wah; James Lenton; Jonathan Smith; Paul Bassett; Satinder Jagdev; Christy Ralph; Naveen Vasudev; Selina Bhattarai; Michael Kimuli; Jon Cartledge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 5.315