Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Update on Cryoablation for Treatment of Small Renal Mass: Oncologic Control, Renal Function Preservation, and Rate of Complications

  • Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cryoablation has become a popular treatment option for the treatment of small renal masses (SRMs) in patients who are not ideal surgical candidates. This relatively new therapy continues to be studied in terms of its efficacy and safety. Intermediate- and long-term data published over the past year suggest comparable rates of oncological control for established extirpative options (partial and radical nephrectomy). Studies evaluating its safety profile show a decreased rate of major and minor complications, as compared with surgery. Cyroablation also offers excellent preservation of kidney function and is a viable treatment option in patients with preexisting renal compromise. The purpose of the present review is to summarize current literature on cryoablation therapy in the management of SRMs, with emphasis on studies published over the past year.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Canadian Cancer Society. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2013. Available at: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-cancer-statistics-publication/?region=on Accessed March 2013

  2. Lowrance WT, Thompson RH, Yee DS, Kaag M, Donat SM, Russo P. Obesity is associated with a higher risk of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma than with other histologies. BJU Int. 2010;105(1):16–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lightfoot N, Conlon M, Kreiger N, et al. Impact of noninvasive imaging on increased incidental detection of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2000;37(5):521–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lagerveld BW, van Dekken H, van Leenders GJ, van der Zee JA. The role of pathology in small renal mass laparoscopic cryoablation. Adv Urol. 2012;2012, 539648. Small series evaluating the role of intraoperative biopsy during LCA as means for pathological diagnosis of SRMs.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Faddegon S, Cadeddu JA. Does renal mass ablation provide adequate long-term oncologic control? Urol Clin N Am. 2012;39(2):181–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J, Morash CG, Pautler SE, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(1):39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Laguna MP, Zondervan PJ, de la Rosette JJ. Focal therapy in the management of small renal masses. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(5):372–8. Review of current literature of all focal therapy for SRMs including ablative therapy such as CA and RFA, comparing oncological outcomes and complications.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Klatte T, Grubmüller B, Waldert M, Weibl P, Remzi M. Laparoscopic cryoablation versus partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal masses: systematic review and cumulative analysis of observational studies. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):435–43. Systematic review and meta-analysis of all literature, comparing LCA and PN for oncological outcomes and complications. Ninety-eight articles are included, up to 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Karam JA, Wood CG. Management of small renal masses: watch, cut, freeze, or fry? Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):905–6, discussion 906-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barwari K, Rosette J, Laguna M.P. Focal Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Which Modality Is Best? Eur Urol Supp. 2011. Excellent review of literature focusing on long-term data for focal therapy to access efficacy in terms of oncological outcomes and rates of complications for each therapy.

  11. Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, et al. European Association of Urology Guideline Group. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):398–406. Most up-to-date EAU guidelines for the treatment of SRM.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT, Coleman JA, Dahm P, Derweesh IH, et al. Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):407–16. Most up-to-date AUA consensus guidelines for follow-up for localized SRM.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitson JM, Harris CR, Meng MV. Population-based comparative effectiveness of nephron-sparing surgery vsablation for small renal masses. BJU Int. 2012;110(10):1438–43. Retrospective study using SEER database (all cases from 1998 to 2007) comparing nephron-sparing surgery (PN) versus ablation in terms of oncological outcomes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Derweesh IH. Quality improvement of reporting standards for ablative studies: where do we stand? Can J Urol. 2012;19(5):6423.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kang DC, Palmer DA, Zarei M, et al. A systematic review of the quality of evidence of ablative therapy for small renal masses. J Urol. 2012;187(1):44–7. Systematic review of current literature from 1995 to 2009, which concluded that high quality evidence comparing various treatments for SRMs was limited. Most are single-arm observation studies, suggesting caution with respect to any recommendations made on the basis of these studies, pending data from stronger study designs.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zagoria RJ, Childs DD. Update on thermal ablation of renal cell carcinoma: oncologic control, technique comparison, renal function preservation, and new modalities. Curr Urol Rep. 2012;13(1):63–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Castro Jr A, Jenkins LC, Salas N, Lorber G, Leveillee RJ. Ablative therapies for small renal tumours. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(5):284–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chalasani V, Martinez CH, Lim D, Abdelhady M, Chin JL. Surgical cryoablation as an option for small renal masses in patients who are not ideal partial nephrectomy candidates: intermediate-term outcomes. Can Urol Assoc J. 2010;4(6):399–402.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gage AA. History of cryosurgery. Semin Surg Oncol. 1998;14(2):99–109.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Uchida M, Imaide Y, Sugimoto K, Uehara H, Watanabe H. Percutaneous cryosurgery for renal tumours. Br J Urol. 1995;75(2):132–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Maccini M, Sehrt D, Pompeo A, et al. Biophysiologic considerations in cryoablation: a practical mechanistic molecular review. Braz J Urol. 2011;37(6):693–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Autorino R, Kaouk JH. Cryoablation for small renal tumors: current status and future perspectives. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(4 Suppl):S20–7. Excellent review of literature focusing on various cryoablative techniques, with select literature up to 2011 focusing on oncological outcomes, functional outcomes, and rates of complications.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sprenkle PC, Mirabile G, Durak E, et al. The effect of argon gas pressure on ice ball size and rate of formation. J Endourol. 2010;24(9):1503–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chosy SG, Nakada SY, Lee Jr FT, Warner TF. Monitoring renal cryosurgery: predictors of tissue necrosis in swine. J Urol. 1998;159(4):1370–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Graversen JA, Mues AC, Landman J. Laparoscopic ablation of renal neoplasms. J Endourol. 2011;25(2):187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Allen BC, Remer EM. Percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors: patient selection, technique, and postprocedural imaging. Radiographics. 2010;30(4):887–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Haber GP, Colombo JR, Remer E. Synchronized real-time ultrasonography and three-dimensional computed tomography scan navigation during percutaneous renal cryoablation in a porcine model. J Endourol. 2010;24(3):333–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Autorino R, Haber GP, White MA, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH. New developments in renal focal therapy. J Endourol. 2010;24(5):665–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Long CJ, Canter DJ, Smaldone MC, et al. Role of tumor location in selecting patients for percutaneous versus surgical cryoablation of renal masses. Can J Urol. 2012;19(5):6417–22. Review of literature of case series reported lack of generalized reporting of tumor characteristics, including tumor location. Of those with tumor location reported, location determined the choice of treatment approach.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Patel SR, Hinshaw JL, Lubner MG, et al. Hydrodissection using an iodinated contrast medium during percutaneous renal cryoablation. J Endourol. 2012;26(5):463–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tsivian M, Kim CY, Caso JR, et al. Contrast enhancement on computed tomography after renal cryoablation: an evidence of treatment failure? J Endourol. 2012;26(4):330–5. Retrospective study of 172 CA procedures (PCA and LCA) with postoperative follow-up CT, showing a significant number (50 %) of post-op CT enhancement to resolve spontaneously and be benign. >35HU and delayed enhancement are more worrisome signs for disease recurrence.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Erdeljan P, Dhar M, Wignall G, Kozak R, Pautler SE. Thermal ablation of small renal masses: intermediate outcomes from a Canadian center. Can J Urol. 2011;18(5):5903–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kapoor A, Touma NJ, Dib RE. Review of the efficacy and safety of cryoablation for the treatment of small renal masses. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7(1):E38–44. Systematic review of all literature up to 2011. Sixty-four studies were identified, with 23 studies reviewed with patient size >30. Efficacy in terms of oncological outcome and safety is presented.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tanagho YS, Roytman TM, Bhayani SB, et al. Laparoscopic cryoablation of renal masses: single-center long-termexperience. Urology. 2012;80(2):307–14. Single-center retrospective study of 62 consecutive patients from 2000 to 2005. This study represents the longest follow-up to date of post-LCA. Study shows high recurrence as disease free survival (DFS) is 80 %, but there is excellent preservation of renal function.

  35. Haber GP, Lee MC, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, Gill IS. Tumour in solitary kidney: laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs laparoscopic cryoablation. BJU Int. 2012;109(1):118–24. Long-term follow-up data comparing LPN and LCA for patients with SRMs in the setting of a solitary kidney, demonstrating superior oncological outcomes for LPN in terms of recurrence, as measured by DFS but not OS.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Spreafico C, Nicolai N, Lanocita R, et al. CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses in selected patients. Radiol Med. 2012;117(4):593–605.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim EH, Tanagho YS, Bhayani SB, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses: Washington University experience of treating 129 tumours. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):872–9. Retrospective study of 124 patients, from 2005 to 2011 at a single institution, undergoing PCA, with intermediate follow-up of data at 30 months assessing for oncological efficacy, function preservation, and rate of complications.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Atwell TD, Callstrom MR, Farrell MA, et al. Percutaneous renal cryoablation: local control at mean 26 months of followup. J Urol. 2010;184(4):1291–5. Retrospective study of 91 patients, from 2003 to 2007 at a single institution, undergoing PCA, with intermediate 2-year follow-up data.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vricella GJ, Haaga JR, Adler BL, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses: impact of patient selection and treatment parameters on outcomes. Urology. 2011;77(3):649–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Goyal J, Verma P, Sidana A, Georgiades CS, Rodriguez R. Single-center comparative oncologic outcomes of surgical and percutaneous cryoablation for treatment of renal tumors. J Endourol. 2012;26(11):1413–9. Single-center retrospective review of 194 patients undergoing either PCA or surgical CA, with intermediate 3-year follow-up data.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pirasteh A, Snyder L, Boncher N, et al. Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(1):97–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. El Dib R, Touma NJ, Kapoor A. Cryoablation vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of case series studies. BJU Int. 2012;110(4):510–6. Systematic review and meta-analysis of all literature up to 2011, encompassing 31 studies comparing efficacy and complication of RFA versus CA.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kunkle DA, Uzzo RG. Cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the small renal mass : a meta-analysis. Cancer. 2008;113(10):2671–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Panumatrassamee K, Kaouk JH, Autorino R, et al. Cryoablation versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for small renal masses in the solitary kidney: impact of approach on functional outcomes. J Urol. 2013;189(3):818–22. Single-center retrospective study of renal function of solitary kidneys post CA or PN based on RENAL nephrometry score of tumor complexity. The RENAL nephrometry score is used as a predictive marker for intraoperative complications.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Altunrende F, Autorino R, Hillyer S, et al. Image guided percutaneous probe ablation for renal tumors in 65 solitary kidneys: functional and oncological outcomes. J Urol. 2011;186(1):35–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pettus JA, Werle DM, Saunders W, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation does not affect glomerular filtration rate. J Endourol. 2010;24(10):1687–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Turna B, Kaouk JH, Frota R, Stein RJ, Kamoi K, Gill IS, et al. Minimally invasive nephron sparing management for renal tumors in solitary kidneys. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tsivian M, Caso J, Kimura M, Polascik TJ. Renal function outcomes after laparoscopic renal cryoablation. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):1287–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sidana A, Aggarwal P, Feng Z, Georgiades CS, Trock BJ, Rodriguez R. Complications of renal cryoablation: a single center experience. J Urol. 2010;184(1):42–7. Retrospective single-center study of 162 patients undergoing PCA (101), LCA (52), or OCA (9) analysis for complications, with tumor size, number of cryoprobes used, anticoagulation status, and tumor location predictive for postoperative complications (hematoma formation, cardiovascular complications).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Haramis G, Graversen JA, Mues AC, et al. Retrospective comparison of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic renal cryoablation for small (<3.5 cm) cortical renal masses. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(2):152–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Atwell TD, Carter RE, Schmit GD, et al. Complications following 573 percutaneous renal radiofrequency and cryoablation procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(1):48–54. Large single-center retrospective study evaluating complications of pRFA and CA.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Schmit GD, Thompson RH, Kurup AN, et al. Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system for predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous ablation of 751 renal tumors. J Urol. 2013;189(1):30–5. Large single-institution retrospective study of 627 patients undergoing RFA or CA with intermediate term follow-up of 27.8 months. RENAL nephrometry score was shown to predict treatment efficacy and post-op complications.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sisul DM, Liss MA, Palazzi KL, et al. RENAL nephrometry score is associated with complications after renal cryoablation: a multicenter analysis. Urology. 2013;81(4):775–80. Multiinstitution retrospective study of 154 consecutive patients with 30-day follow-up using the RENAL nephrometry score as predictor of intraoperative and postoperative complications of PCA and LCA.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L, et al. Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Urology. 2007;69(2):311–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chang SL, Cipriano LE, Harshman LC, Garber AM, Chung BI. Cost-effectiveness analysis of nephron sparing options for the management of small renal masses. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1591–7. Decision model based on cost analysis of different treatment modalities for SRMs in a hypothetical healthy 65-year-old patient.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bhan SN, Paulter SE, Shayegan B, Voss MD, Goeree RA, You JJ. Active surveillance, radiofrequency ablation, or cryoablation for the nonsurgical management of a small renal mass: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3675–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Anil Kapoor, Dr. Yuding Wang, Dr. Brad Dishan, and Dr. Stephen E. Pautler each declare no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, McMaster University, St. Joseph Hospital, Charlton Campus, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 4A6

    Anil Kapoor & Yuding Wang

  2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

    Brad Dishan & Stephen E. Pautler

Authors
  1. Anil Kapoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuding Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brad Dishan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen E. Pautler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anil Kapoor.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Kidney Diseases

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapoor, A., Wang, Y., Dishan, B. et al. Update on Cryoablation for Treatment of Small Renal Mass: Oncologic Control, Renal Function Preservation, and Rate of Complications. Curr Urol Rep 15, 396 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0396-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0396-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation