Takaaki Hasegawa1, Takashi Yamanaka2, Hideo Gobara3, Masaya Miyazaki4, Haruyuki Takaki5, Yozo Sato6, Yoshitaka Inaba6, Koichiro Yamakado5. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Chikusa-ku Kanokoden, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan. t-hasegawa@aichi-cc.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Mie University School of Medicine, Mie, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, Okayama, Japan. 4. Department of Interventional Radiology and Clinical Ultrasound Cente, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, Japan. 5. Department of Radiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Chikusa-ku Kanokoden, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation for the treatment of clinical T1b (cT1b) renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 46 patients [(39 men and 7 women, median age; 73 years, range 39-87 years)] were gathered from 3 institutions. RFA and cryoablation were performed on 23 patients each. The median number of ablation needle was 2 (range 1-4) and 4 (range 3-5, p < 0.0001) in RFA and cryoablation, respectively. Technique efficacy defined as coverage of the tumor by ablative zone, adverse events, local tumor progression, and survival were compared between the RFA and cryoablation groups. RESULTS: The primary technique efficacy rate was significantly higher in the cryoablation group (96%, 22/23) than in the RFA group (65%, 15/23, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the secondary technique efficacy rate after additional RFA and cryoablation [21/23 (91%) vs. 23/23 (100%); P = 0.24]. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (P > 0.99). There was no significant difference between local tumor progression rate after RFA and cryoablation [3/21 (14%) vs. 2/23 (9%); P = 0.66]. The 5-year overall survival rates were comparable between RFA and cryoablation (78 vs. 82%; P =0.82). CONCLUSION: Other than primary technique efficacy, the clinical outcomes between RFA and cryoablation were similar in patients with cT1b RCC.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation for the treatment of clinical T1b (cT1b) renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 46 patients [(39 men and 7 women, median age; 73 years, range 39-87 years)] were gathered from 3 institutions. RFA and cryoablation were performed on 23 patients each. The median number of ablation needle was 2 (range 1-4) and 4 (range 3-5, p < 0.0001) in RFA and cryoablation, respectively. Technique efficacy defined as coverage of the tumor by ablative zone, adverse events, local tumor progression, and survival were compared between the RFA and cryoablation groups. RESULTS: The primary technique efficacy rate was significantly higher in the cryoablation group (96%, 22/23) than in the RFA group (65%, 15/23, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the secondary technique efficacy rate after additional RFA and cryoablation [21/23 (91%) vs. 23/23 (100%); P = 0.24]. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (P > 0.99). There was no significant difference between local tumor progression rate after RFA and cryoablation [3/21 (14%) vs. 2/23 (9%); P = 0.66]. The 5-year overall survival rates were comparable between RFA and cryoablation (78 vs. 82%; P =0.82). CONCLUSION: Other than primary technique efficacy, the clinical outcomes between RFA and cryoablation were similar in patients with cT1b RCC.
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Benjamin T Larson; Tianming Gao; Steven C Campbell; Brian R Lane; Jihad H Kaouk; Inderbir S Gill; Eric A Klein; Amr F Fergany Journal: Urology Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marc C Smaldone; Brian Egleston; John M Hollingsworth; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Todd M Morgan; Simon P Kim; Aseem Malhotra; Elizabeth Handorf; Yu-Ning Wong; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.983
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: 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: Andrew J Gunn; Winston B Joe; Aliaksei Salei; Husameddin El Khudari; Khalid H Mahmoud; Eric Bready; Eric M Keasler; Patrick P Patten; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Ahmed K Abdel Aal Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 2.740