| Literature DB >> 36013508 |
Andrea Piasentin1, Francesco Claps1, Tommaso Silvestri2, Giacomo Rebez1, Fabio Traunero1, Maria Carmen Mir3, Michele Rizzo1, Antonio Celia2, Calogero Cicero4, Martina Urbani5, Luca Balestreri5, Lisa Pola6, Fulvio Laganà6, Stefano Cernic7, Maria Assunta Cova7, Michele Bertolotto7, Carlo Trombetta1, Giovanni Liguori1, Nicola Pavan1.
Abstract
Background andEntities:
Keywords: cryoablation; renal cancer; small renal masses
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36013508 PMCID: PMC9412454 DOI: 10.3390/medicina58081041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) ISSN: 1010-660X Impact factor: 2.948
Main characteristics of the population, stratified according to the diameter cut-off.
| All Renal Masses | Diameter ≤ 25 mm | Diameter > 25 mm | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| Median (IQR) | 74 (67–80) | 72 (65.2–78.0) | 77 (71–82) | |
| ASA | ||||
| Median (IQR) | 3 (2–3) | 3 (2–3) | 3 (2–3) | |
| BMI | ||||
| Median (IQR) | 26.2 (23.9–28.5) | 26.0 (23.7–28.4) | 26.4 (24.4–28.7) | |
| Previous RN | 29 (8.0%) | 15 (7.5%) | 14 (10%) | |
| Previous PN | 23 (6.3%) | 15 (7.5%) | 8 (5.7%) | |
| PADUA SCORE missing 2 | Missing 1 | Missing 1 | ||
| 6–7 | 148 (43.8%) | 106 (53.3%) | 42 (30.2%) | |
| 8–9 | 141 (41.7%) | 77 (38.7%) | 64 (46.0%) | |
| 10–11 | 47 (13.9%) | 16 (8.0%) | 31 (22.3%) | |
| ≥12 | 2 (0.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (1.4%) | |
| PADUA SCORE | ||||
| Median (IQR) | 8 (7–9) | 7 (7–8) | 8 (7–9) | |
| Creatinine Pre-Treatment | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 1.2 (0.7) | 1.1 (0.6) | 1.2 (0.7) | |
| Median (IQR) | 1.0 (0.9–1.2) | 1.0 (0.9–1.2) | 1.0 (0.9–1.3) | |
| eGFR Pre-Treatment | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 70.9 (23.9) | 72.9 (25.3) | 67.8 (21.4) | |
| Median (IQR) | 69.9 (56.6–82.6) | 73.4 (56.9–84.9) | 68.7 (55.5–79.7) | |
| Biopsy | ||||
| Yes (%) | 303 (89.1) | 172 (86.0) | 131 (93.6) | |
| No (%) | 37 (10.9) | 28 (14.0) | 9 (6.4) | |
| Histology | ||||
| RCC (%) | 202 (66.7) | 111 (64.5) | 91 (69.5) | |
| Benign (%) | 70 (23.1) | 43 (25.0) | 27 (20.6) | |
| Non diagnostic (%) | 31 (10.2) | 18 (10.5) | 13 (9.9) |
Complications occurred in the two groups and the overall population.
| Complication | Overall | Diameter ≤ 25 mm | Diameter > 25 mm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 340) | (n = 200) | (n= 140) | ||
| Clavien–Dindo | ||||
| Clavien I (%) | 54 (81.8%) | 23 (88.5%) | 31 (77.5%) | |
| Clavien II (%) | 9 (13.6%) | 1 (3.9%) | 8 (20.0%) | |
| Clavien III (%) | 3 (4.6%) | 2 (7.7%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| Total | ||||
| Number of total complications (%) | 66 (19.5%) | 26 (13.0%) | 40 (28.6%) |
eGFR variation between the two groups.
| Overall Cohort | Diameter ≤ 25 mm | Diameter > 25 mm | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 115) | (n = 72) | (n = 43) | ||
| Delta EGFR (%) | ||||
| Median | 6 | 4 | 8 | |
| (Min–Max) | (−8;6.4) | (−3.2;4.5) | (−8;6.4) | |
| Delta eGFR (%) | ||||
| ≤10% | 72 (62) | 46 (64) | 26 (58) | |
| >10% | 43 (37) | 25 (36) | 18 (42) |
Figure 1Recurrence-free survival between the two groups.
Trifecta outcome between the two groups.
| N. Patients | Overall | Diameter ≤ 25 mm | Diameter > 25 mm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 78) | (n = 46) | (n = 32) | ||
| Grade eGFR confirmed | ||||
| Number (%) | 54 (69.2%) | 34 (73.9%) | 20 (62.5%) | 0.28 |
| No Recurrence | 71 (91.0%) | |||
| Number (%) | 44 (95.7%) | 27 (84.4%) | ||
| No Complications | ||||
| Number (%) | 66 (94%) | 46 (100%) | 28 (87%) | |
| Trifecta | ||||
| Number (%) | 45 (57.7%) | 32 (69.6%) | 13 (40.6%) |