Byung Kwan Park1, In Hyuck Gong2, Min Yong Kang2, Hyun Hwan Sung2, Hwang Gyun Jeon2, Byong Chang Jeong2, Seong Soo Jeon2, Hyun Moo Lee2, Seong Il Seo3. 1. Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 135-710, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 135-710, Republic of Korea. siseo@skku.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological and functional mid-term outcomes following robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using propensity score-matching. METHODS: Between December 2008-April 2016, 63 patients from each treatment group were propensity score-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumour size, tumour laterality, tumour histology, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Post-treatment follow-up periods for RPN and RFA ranged from 1-90 months (median, 24.6) and 1-65 months (21), respectively. Tumour location, percentage of eGFR preservation and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate were compared between groups. RESULTS: Exophytic and endophytic RCC occurred in 73.0 % (46/63) and 27.0 % (17/63) of the RPN group, and 52.4 % (33/63) and 47.6 % (30/63) of the RFA group, respectively (p=0.017). There was 91.7 % preservation of eGFR in the RPN group and 86.8 % in the RFA group (p=0.088). Two-year recurrence-free survival rate was 100 % in the RPN and 95.2 % in the RFA group (p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: RPN provides a higher recurrence-free survival rate than RFA. However, RFA is a better treatment option for an endophytic or recurrent RCC that is difficult to treat with RPN. KEY POINTS: • RPN provides a higher recurrence-free survival rate than RFA. • Unlike RPN, repeat RFA is easy to perform for recurrent RCC. • Endophytic RCC could be better treated with RFA.
OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological and functional mid-term outcomes following robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using propensity score-matching. METHODS: Between December 2008-April 2016, 63 patients from each treatment group were propensity score-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumour size, tumour laterality, tumour histology, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Post-treatment follow-up periods for RPN and RFA ranged from 1-90 months (median, 24.6) and 1-65 months (21), respectively. Tumour location, percentage of eGFR preservation and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate were compared between groups. RESULTS: Exophytic and endophytic RCC occurred in 73.0 % (46/63) and 27.0 % (17/63) of the RPN group, and 52.4 % (33/63) and 47.6 % (30/63) of the RFA group, respectively (p=0.017). There was 91.7 % preservation of eGFR in the RPN group and 86.8 % in the RFA group (p=0.088). Two-year recurrence-free survival rate was 100 % in the RPN and 95.2 % in the RFA group (p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS:RPN provides a higher recurrence-free survival rate than RFA. However, RFA is a better treatment option for an endophytic or recurrent RCC that is difficult to treat with RPN. KEY POINTS: • RPN provides a higher recurrence-free survival rate than RFA. • Unlike RPN, repeat RFA is easy to perform for recurrent RCC. • Endophytic RCC could be better treated with RFA.
Authors: Ronald J Zagoria; Joseph A Pettus; Morgan Rogers; David M Werle; David Childs; John R Leyendecker Journal: Urology Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Sheaumei Tsai; Sumeet Syan; Jean-Christophe Bernhard; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Sameer Chopra; Andre K Berger; Dennis Lee; Andrew J Hung; Jie Cai; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Joshua M Stern; Robert Svatek; Sangtae Park; Michael Hermann; Yair Lotan; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Maria Pantelidou; Ben Challacombe; Andrew McGrath; Matthew Brown; Shahzad Ilyas; Konstantinos Katsanos; Andreas Adam Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2016-07-19 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