Thermal Ablation of T1c Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Assessment of Technical Performance, Procedural Outcome, and Safety of Microwave Ablation, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Cryoablation

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate perioperative outcomes of thermal ablation with microwave (MW), radiofrequency (RF), and cryoablation for stage T1c renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 384 patients (mean age, 71 y; range, 22-88 y) was performed between October 2006 and October 2016. Mean radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, and location relative to polar lines; preoperative aspects and dimensions used for anatomic classification; and centrality index scores were 6.3, 7.9, and 2.7, respectively. Assessment of pre- and postablation serum blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate was performed to assess functional outcomes. Linear regression analyses were performed to compare sedation medication dosages among the three treatment cohorts. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to compare rates of residual disease and complications among treatment modalities.

Results: A total of 437 clinical stage T1N0M0 biopsy-proven RCCs measuring 1.2-6.9 cm were treated with computed tomography (CT)-guided MW ablation (n = 44; 10%), RF ablation (n = 347; 79%), or cryoablation (n = 46; 11%). There were no significant differences in patient demographic or tumor characteristics among cohorts. Complication rates and immediate renal function changes were similar among the three ablation modalities (P = .46 and P = .08, respectively). MW ablation was associated with significantly decreased ablation time (P < .05), procedural time (P < .05), and dosage of sedative medication (P < .05) compared with RF ablation and cryoablation.

Conclusions: CT-guided percutaneous MW ablation is comparable to RF ablation or cryoablation for the treatment of stage T1N0M0 RCC with regard to treatment response and is associated with shorter treatment times and less sedation than RF ablation or cryoablation. In addition, the safety profile of CT-guided MW ablation is noninferior to those of RF ablation or cryoablation.