Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Percutaneous Microwave Ablation Versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study Focusing Upon Long-Term Follow-Up of Oncologic Outcomes

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Interventional Oncology
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively compare long-term oncologic outcomes of percutaneous computed tomography-guided microwave ablation (MWA) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for the treatment of stage 1 (T1a and T1b) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients.

Materials and Methods

Institutional database research identified all T1 RCC patients who underwent either MWA or RAPN. Models were adjusted with propensity score matching. Kaplan–Meier log-rank test analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the oncologic outcomes. Patient and tumor characteristics, technical success as well as oncologic outcomes were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups.

Results

After propensity score matching, a total of 71 patients underwent percutaneous MWA (mean age 70 ± 10 years) and 71 underwent RAPN (mean age 60 ± 9 years). At 8-year follow-up, the estimated survival rates for MWA cohort were 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95–100%) for overall survival, 97% (95% CI 93–100%) for recurrence-free survival, and 97% (95% CI 93–100%) for metastasis-free survival. The matched cohort that underwent RAPN exhibited survival rates of 100% (95% CI 100–100%) for overall survival, 98% (95% CI 94–100%) for recurrence-free survival, and 98% (95% CI 94–100%) for metastasis-free survival. After performing log-rank testing, these rates were not significantly different (p values of 0.44, 0.67, and 0.67, respectively).

Conclusion

The results of the present study suggest that both MWA and RAPN are equally effective in terms of oncologic outcome for the treatment of T1 RCC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bukavina L, Bensalah K, Bray F, et al. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma: 2022 update. Eur Urol. 2022;82:529–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.08.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Du Z, Chen W, Xia Q, et al. Trends and projections of kidney cancer incidence at the global and national levels, 1990–2030: a Bayesian age-period-cohort modeling study. Biomark Res. 2020;8:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40364-020-00195-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lavallée LT, Tanguay S, Jewett MA, et al. Surgical management of stage T1 renal tumors in Canadian academic centers. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:99. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2598.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sun M, Bianchi M, Trinh Q-D, et al. Comparison of partial vs radical nephrectomy with regard to other-cause mortality in T1 renal cell carcinoma among patients aged ≥75 years with multiple comorbidities. BJU Int. 2013;111:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11254.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yanagisawa T, Mori K, Kawada T, et al. Differential efficacy of ablation therapy versus partial nephrectomy between clinical T1a and T1b renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Invest. 2022;40:315–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2024 Kidney Cancer, Robert Mozer et al.

  7. Campbell SC, Clark PE, Chang SS, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: evaluation, management, and follow-up: AUA guideline: part I. J Urol. 2021;206:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Finelli A, Ismaila N, Bro B, et al. Management of small renal masses: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:668–80. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.9645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol. 2009;182:844–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Puijk RS, Ahmed M, Adam A, et al. Consensus guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in image-guided tumor ablation: results of the SIO and DATECAN initiative. Radiology. 2021;301:533–40. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021203715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Filippiadis DK, Binkert C, Pellerin O, et al. Cirse quality assurance document and standards for classification of complications: the cirse classification system. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40:1141–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1703-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yao XI, Wang X, Speicher PJ, et al. Reporting and guidelines in propensity score analysis: a systematic review of cancer and cancer surgical studies. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao Q-Y, Luo J-C, Su Y, et al. Propensity score matching with R: conventional methods and new features. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:812–812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001;2:169–88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020363010465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Weight CJ, Lieser G, Larson BT, et al. Partial nephrectomy is associated with improved overall survival compared to radical nephrectomy in patients with unanticipated benign renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2010;58:293–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weight CJ, Larson BT, Gao T, et al. Elective partial nephrectomy in patients with clinical T1b renal tumors is associated with improved overall survival. Urology. 2010;76:631–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li L, Zhu J, Shao H, et al. Long-term outcomes of radiofrequency ablation vs. partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Front Surg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1012897.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Morkos J, Porosnicu Rodriguez KA, Zhou A, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation for stage 1 renal cell carcinoma: outcomes from a 10-year prospective study and comparison with matched cohorts from the national cancer database. Radiology. 2020;296:452–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Filippiadis D, Mauri G, Marra P, et al. Percutaneous ablation techniques for renal cell carcinoma: current status and future trends. Int J Hyperth. 2019;36:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2019.1647352.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Efthymiou E, Siatelis A, Liakouras C, et al. Computed tomography-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on the progression survival rates. Diagnostics. 2021;11:1618. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11091618.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lucignani G, Rizzo M, Ierardi AM, et al. Percutaneous microwave ablation is comparable to cryoablation for the treatment of T1a renal masses: results from a cross-sectional study. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022;20:e506–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2022.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Castellana R, Natrella M, Fanelli G, et al. Efficacy and safety of MWA versus RFA and CA for renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparison studies. Eur J Radiol. 2023;165:110943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Panhelleux M, Balssa L, David A, et al. Evaluation of local control after percutaneous microwave ablation versus partial nephrectomy: a propensity score matched study. Prog Urol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2023.09.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Efthymiou E, Velonakis G, Charalampopoulos G, et al. Computed tomography-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for renal cell carcinoma: evaluating the performance of nephrometry scores. Eur Radiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09774-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cazalas G, Klein C, Piana G, et al. A multicenter comparative matched-pair analysis of percutaneous tumor ablation and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy of T1b renal cell carcinoma (AblatT1b study—UroCCR 80). Eur Radiol. 2023;33:6513–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09564-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shapiro DD, Wells SA, Best SL, et al. Comparing outcomes for patients with clinical T1b renal cell carcinoma treated with either percutaneous microwave ablation or surgery. Urology. 2020;135:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeaman C, Marchant R, Lobo JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis: percutaneous microwave ablation vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for small renal masses. Abdom Radiol. 2022;48:411–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03692-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Junker T, Duus L, Rasmussen BSB, et al. Quality of life and complications after nephron-sparing treatment of renal cell carcinoma stage T1—a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2022;11:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01868-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, and its affiliated academic healthcare centers, or the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    David-Dimitris Chlorogiannis

  2. 3rd Department of Urology, University General Hospital “ATTIKON,” Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Zisis Kratiras & Michail Chrisofos

  3. 2nd Department of Radiology, University General Hospital “ATTIKON,” Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Evgenia Efthymiou, Nikolaos Kelekis & Dimitris K. Filippiadis

  4. 1st Department of Urology, “Laiko” General Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Napoleon Moulavasilis & Konstandinos Stravodimos

Authors
  1. David-Dimitris Chlorogiannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zisis Kratiras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evgenia Efthymiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Napoleon Moulavasilis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikolaos Kelekis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michail Chrisofos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Konstandinos Stravodimos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dimitris K. Filippiadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David-Dimitris Chlorogiannis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1154 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chlorogiannis, DD., Kratiras, Z., Efthymiou, E. et al. Percutaneous Microwave Ablation Versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study Focusing Upon Long-Term Follow-Up of Oncologic Outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-024-03695-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-024-03695-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation