Phase I/II Study of Radiofrequency Ablation for Malignant Renal Tumors: Japan Interventional Radiology in Oncology Study Group 0701

  • Hidefumi MimuraEmail author
  • Yasuaki Arai
  • Koichiro Yamakado
  • Miyuki Sone
  • Yoshito Takeuchi
  • Tsuneharu Miki
  • Hideo Gobara
  • Yusuke Sakuhara
  • Takanobu Yamamoto
  • Yozo Sato
  • Susumu Kanazawa
Clinical Investigation



This multicenter phase I/II study evaluated the safety, feasibility, and initial efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small malignant renal tumors.


Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study. A single session of RFA was performed in patients with a renal tumor of 1–3 cm in greatest diameter, with the exception of lesions adjacent to the renal hilum. The primary endpoint was the safety of renal RFA, and the secondary endpoints were its feasibility and initial efficacy for local control, as well as the incidence and grade of adverse events. Clinical efficacy was evaluated by CT scans within 1 week and at a further 4 weeks after the procedure using the criteria adapted from the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.


The RFA procedure was completed in 100 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 89–100 %) of all 33 patients. There were no severe adverse events (0 % [95 % CI 0–11 %]). Among the 33 patients, a complete response, partial response, progressive disease, and stable disease were seen in 28 (85 %), 0 (0 %), one (3 %), and one (3 %) patient(s), respectively, with a tumor response rate of 85 % [95 % CI 68–95 %]). Three patients (9 %), including one ineligible patient (3 %), were not evaluable. Out of 30 evaluable patients, a complete response was achieved in 28 (93 %).


The current multicenter trial revealed that RFA is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for small malignant renal tumors in patients who are not candidates for surgery.


Interventional oncology Nonvascular interventions Ablation Radiofrequency ablation Kidney/renal Cancer Tumor/tumour/neoplasm Clinical practice 



This work was supported by the Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

HM, KY, TM, HG, and TY reported grants from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare as mentioned above during the conduct of the study. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Statement of Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

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.

Supplementary material

270_2015_1275_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, McDougal WS, Mueller PR. Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: part 1, indications, results, and role in patient management over a 6-year period and ablation of 100 tumors. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(1):64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zagoria RJ, Traver MA, Werle DM, Perini M, Hayasaka S, Clark PE. Oncologic efficacy of CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):429–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breen DJ, Rutherford EE, Stedman B, Roy-Choudhury SH, Cast JE, Hayes MC, et al. Management of renal tumors by image-guided radiofrequency ablation: experience in 105 tumors. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30(5):936–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hegarty NJ, Gill IS, Desai MM, Remer EM, O’Malley CM, Kaouk JH. Probe-ablative nephron-sparing surgery: cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation. Urology. 2006;68(1 Suppl):7–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veltri A, Gazzera C, Busso M, Solitro F, Piccoli GB, Andreetto B, et al. T1a as the sole selection criterion for RFA of renal masses: randomized controlled trials versus surgery should not be postponed. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(5):1292–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi T, Arai Y, Takeuchi Y, Nakajima Y, Shioyama Y, Sone M, et al. Phase I/II clinical study of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) as palliation for painful malignant vertebral compression fractures (PMVCF): JIVROSG-0202. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(12):1943–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 3.0. Available from URL: Accessed Oct 11, 2015.
  8. 8.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(3):205–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, Kramer BS, Lencioni R, Zhu AX, et al. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(10):698–711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30(1):52–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edeline J, Boucher E, Rolland Y, Vauléon E, Pracht M, Perrin C, et al. Comparison of tumor response by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2012;118(1):147–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel J, Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Platt JF. In vivo predictors of renal cyst pseudoenhancement at 120 kVp. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):336–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Israel GM, Bosniak MA. How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology. 2005;236(2):441–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ahmed M, Solbiati L, Brace CL, Breen DJ, Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria-a 10-year update. Radiology. 2014;273(1):241–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matin SF, Ahrar K, Cadeddu JA, Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Zagoria RJ, et al. Residual and recurrent disease following renal ablative therapy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2006;176(5):1973–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Psutka SP, Feldman AS, McDougal WS, McGovern FJ, Mueller P, Gervais DA, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):486–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tracy CR, Raman JD, Donnally C, Trimmer CK, Cadeddu JA. Durable oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation: experience from treating 243 small renal masses over 7.5 years. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3135–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levinson AW, Su LM, Agarwal D, Sroka M, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR. Long-term oncological and overall outcomes of percutaneous radio frequency ablation in high risk surgical patients with a solitary small renal mass. J Urol. 2008;180(2):499–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hidefumi Mimura
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yasuaki Arai
    • 3
  • Koichiro Yamakado
    • 4
  • Miyuki Sone
    • 3
    • 5
  • Yoshito Takeuchi
    • 3
  • Tsuneharu Miki
    • 6
  • Hideo Gobara
    • 2
  • Yusuke Sakuhara
    • 7
  • Takanobu Yamamoto
    • 8
  • Yozo Sato
    • 9
  • Susumu Kanazawa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySt. Marianna University School of MedicineKawasakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyOkayama University Medical SchoolOkayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of Interventional RadiologyMie University School of MedicineTsuJapan
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyIwate Medical UniversityMoriokaJapan
  6. 6.Department of UrologyKyoto Prefectural University of MedicineKyotoJapan
  7. 7.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyHokkaido University School of MedicineSapporoJapan
  8. 8.Department of RadiologyTochigi Cancer CenterUtsunomiyaJapan
  9. 9.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyAichi Cancer Center HospitalNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations