Percutaneous Microwave Ablation Versus Cryoablation in the Treatment of T1a Renal Tumors
Radiofrequency and cryoablation (Cryo) are the most widely used techniques for the treatment of T1a renal tumors in non-surgical candidates, yet microwave ablation (MWA) has been gaining popularity. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that MWA has comparable safety and efficacy to Cryo in the treatment of selected T1a renal masses.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective comparative analysis of two patient cohorts was carried out on 83 nodules in 72 consecutive patients treated using image-guided percutaneous ablation with either Cryo or MWA. Patient demographics, tumor histology and characteristics, technical success, procedure time, adverse events and complications, nephrometry score (mRENAL) and renal function were evaluated. Local recurrence was evaluated at 1, 6, 12 and 18–24 months.
Fifty-one nodules were treated with Cryo and 32 with MWA (44 and 28 patients, respectively). No statistical differences were observed following Cryo or MWA in median tumor size (p = 0.6), mRENAL (p = 0.1) or technical success (p = 0.8). Median procedure time was significantly lower using microwave ablation (p = 0.003). Median follow-up time was similar in the two groups (22 and 20 months, respectively). Occurrence of complications did not differ (Cryo 5/51, MWA 2/32; p = 0.57), and probability of complications or technical success adjusted for mRENAL did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.6). Renal function was preserved in all patients regardless of techniques. Disease recurrence was observed in 3/47 and in 1/30 treated nodules in the Cryo and MWA groups, respectively, without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.06).
In the patient population studied, MWA showed comparable safety and efficacy relative to Cryo.
Level of Evidence
Level 3, Non-randomized cohort study.
KeywordsMicrowave ablation Cryoablation T1a renal tumors Recurrence Safety Efficacy
No funding supported this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have non conflict of interest.
Consent for Publication
Consent for publication was obtained within a specific ICF form.
Even though the study is retrospective, all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and approved by the Institutions’ Ethics Committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study or waivered according to indications of the local Ethics Committee.
- 16.De Cobelli F, Marra P, Ratti F, Ambrosi A, Colombo M, Damascelli A, et al. Microwave ablation of liver malignancies: comparison of effects and early outcomes of percutaneous and intraoperative approaches with different liver conditions: new advances in interventional oncology: state of the art. Med Oncol. 2017;34(4):49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-017-0903-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic R, Salazar GM, Schwartzberg MS, Walker TG, Saad WA. Consensus guidelines for periprocedural management of coagulation status and hemostasis risk in percutaneous image-guided interventions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(6):727–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.02.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ierardi AM, Puliti A, Angileri SA, Petrillo M, Duka E, Floridi C, et al. Microwave ablation of malignant renal tumours: intermediate-term results and usefulness of RENAL and mRENAL scores for predicting outcomes and complications. Med Oncol. 2017;34(5):97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-017-0948-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Filippiadis DK, Binkert C, Pellerin O, Hoffmann RT, Krajina A, Pereira PL. Cirse quality assurance document and standards for classification of complications: the cirse classification system. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(8):1141–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1703-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Goldberg SN, Grassi CJ, Cardella JF, Charboneau JW, Dodd GD 3rd, Dupuy DE, Gervais DA, Gillams AR, Kane RA, Lee FT Jr, Livraghi T, McGahan J, Phillips DA, Rhim H, Silverman SG, Solbiati L, Vogl TJ, Wood BJ, Vedantham S, Sacks D. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(7 Suppl):S377–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Filippiadis DK, Gkizas C, Chrysofos M, Siatelis A, Velonakis G, Alexopoulou E, et al. Percutaneous microwave ablation of renal cell carcinoma using a high power microwave system: focus upon safety and efficacy. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018;34(7):1077–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2017.1408147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Hao G, Hao Y, Cheng Z, Zhang X, Cao F, Yu X, et al. Local tumor progression after ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation of stage T1a renal cell carcinoma: risk factors analysis of 171 tumors. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018;35(1):62–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2018.1475684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Yang Q, Meng F, Li K, Wang T, Nie Q, Che Z, Liu M, Sun Y, Zhao L. Safety and efficacy of thermal ablation for small renal masses in solitary kidney: evidence from meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0131290. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131290.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Zhou W, Arellano RS. Thermal ablation of T1c renal cell carcinoma: a comparative assessment of technical performance, procedural outcome, and safety of microwave ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and cryoablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(7):943–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.12.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Zhou W, Herwald SE, McCarthy C, Uppot RN, Arellano RS. Radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a comparative evaluation of therapeutic and renal function outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30:1035–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2018.12.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Astani SA, Brown ML, Steusloff K. Comparison of procedure costs of various percutaneous tumor ablation modalities. Radiol Manag. 2014;36(4):12–7.Google Scholar
- 30.Camacho JC, Kokabi N, Xing M, Master V, Pattaras J, Mittal P, et al. R.E.N.A.L (Radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, and location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score predicts early tumor recurrence and complications after percutaneous ablation: a 5-year experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(5):686-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2015.01.008.
- 31.Mouli SK, McDevitt JL, Su Y-K, Ragin AB, Gao Y, Nemcek AA Jr, et al. Analysis of the RENAL and mRENAL scores and the relative importance of their components in the prediction of complications and local progression after percutaneous renal cryoablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(6):860–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar