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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |