Cargando…

Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is stated as a treatment option for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) smaller than 4 cm (T1a). Microwave ablation (MWA) is a newer technique and is still considered experimental in some guidelines. The objective of this study was to compare the safety...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aarts, Brigit M., Gomez, Fernando M., Lopez-Yurda, Marta, Bevers, Rob F. M., Herndriks, Joris, Beets-Tan, Regina G. H., Bex, Axel, Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G., van der Meer, Rutger W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9889465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36066733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09110-w
_version_ 1784880736761806848
author Aarts, Brigit M.
Gomez, Fernando M.
Lopez-Yurda, Marta
Bevers, Rob F. M.
Herndriks, Joris
Beets-Tan, Regina G. H.
Bex, Axel
Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G.
van der Meer, Rutger W.
author_facet Aarts, Brigit M.
Gomez, Fernando M.
Lopez-Yurda, Marta
Bevers, Rob F. M.
Herndriks, Joris
Beets-Tan, Regina G. H.
Bex, Axel
Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G.
van der Meer, Rutger W.
author_sort Aarts, Brigit M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is stated as a treatment option for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) smaller than 4 cm (T1a). Microwave ablation (MWA) is a newer technique and is still considered experimental in some guidelines. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of RFA and MWA for the treatment of RCC. METHODS: Patients with T1a RCC treated by RFA or MWA in two referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patient records were evaluated to generate mRENAL nephrometry scores. Local tumor progression (LTP) was considered when new (recurrence) or residual tumor enhancement within/adjacent to the ablation zone was objectified. Differences in LTP-free interval (residual + recurrence) between ablation techniques were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score (PS) methods. RESULTS: In 164 patients, 87 RFAs and 101 MWAs were performed for 188 RCCs. The primary efficacy rate was 92% (80/87) for RFA and 91% (92/101) for MWA. Sixteen patients had residual disease (RFA (n = 7), MWA (n = 9)) and 9 patients developed recurrence (RFA (n = 7), MWA (n = 2)). LTP-free interval was significantly worse for higher mRENAL nephrometry scores. No difference in LTP-free interval was found between RFA and MWA in a model with inverse probability weighting using PS (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.35–2.81, p = 0.98) and in a PS-matched dataset with 110 observations (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.16–4.31, p = 0.82). Twenty-eight (14.9%) complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I–IVa) occurred (RFA n = 14, MWA n = 14). CONCLUSION: Primary efficacy for ablation of RCC is high for both RFA and MWA. No differences in efficacy and safety were observed between RFA and MWA. KEY POINTS: • Both RFA and MWA are safe and effective ablation techniques in the treatment of T1a renal cell carcinomas. • High modified RENAL nephrometry scores are associated with shorter local tumor progression-free interval. • MWA can be used as heat-based ablation technique comparable to RFA for the treatment of T1a renal cell carcinomas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9889465
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98894652023-02-02 Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis Aarts, Brigit M. Gomez, Fernando M. Lopez-Yurda, Marta Bevers, Rob F. M. Herndriks, Joris Beets-Tan, Regina G. H. Bex, Axel Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G. van der Meer, Rutger W. Eur Radiol Interventional OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is stated as a treatment option for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) smaller than 4 cm (T1a). Microwave ablation (MWA) is a newer technique and is still considered experimental in some guidelines. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of RFA and MWA for the treatment of RCC. METHODS: Patients with T1a RCC treated by RFA or MWA in two referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patient records were evaluated to generate mRENAL nephrometry scores. Local tumor progression (LTP) was considered when new (recurrence) or residual tumor enhancement within/adjacent to the ablation zone was objectified. Differences in LTP-free interval (residual + recurrence) between ablation techniques were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score (PS) methods. RESULTS: In 164 patients, 87 RFAs and 101 MWAs were performed for 188 RCCs. The primary efficacy rate was 92% (80/87) for RFA and 91% (92/101) for MWA. Sixteen patients had residual disease (RFA (n = 7), MWA (n = 9)) and 9 patients developed recurrence (RFA (n = 7), MWA (n = 2)). LTP-free interval was significantly worse for higher mRENAL nephrometry scores. No difference in LTP-free interval was found between RFA and MWA in a model with inverse probability weighting using PS (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.35–2.81, p = 0.98) and in a PS-matched dataset with 110 observations (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.16–4.31, p = 0.82). Twenty-eight (14.9%) complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I–IVa) occurred (RFA n = 14, MWA n = 14). CONCLUSION: Primary efficacy for ablation of RCC is high for both RFA and MWA. No differences in efficacy and safety were observed between RFA and MWA. KEY POINTS: • Both RFA and MWA are safe and effective ablation techniques in the treatment of T1a renal cell carcinomas. • High modified RENAL nephrometry scores are associated with shorter local tumor progression-free interval. • MWA can be used as heat-based ablation technique comparable to RFA for the treatment of T1a renal cell carcinomas. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-09-06 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9889465/ /pubmed/36066733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09110-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Interventional
Aarts, Brigit M.
Gomez, Fernando M.
Lopez-Yurda, Marta
Bevers, Rob F. M.
Herndriks, Joris
Beets-Tan, Regina G. H.
Bex, Axel
Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G.
van der Meer, Rutger W.
Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
title Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
title_full Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
title_fullStr Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
title_full_unstemmed Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
title_short Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
title_sort safety and efficacy of rfa versus mwa for t1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis
topic Interventional
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9889465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36066733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09110-w
work_keys_str_mv AT aartsbrigitm safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT gomezfernandom safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT lopezyurdamarta safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT beversrobfm safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT herndriksjoris safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT beetstanreginagh safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT bexaxel safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT klompenhouwerelisabethg safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis
AT vandermeerrutgerw safetyandefficacyofrfaversusmwafort1arenalcellcarcinomaapropensityscoreanalysis