We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Radiofrequency ablation versus cryoablation for T1b renal cell carcinoma: a multi-center study.
Japanese Journal of Radiology 2018 September
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation for the treatment of clinical T1b (cT1b) renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 46 patients [(39 men and 7 women, median age; 73 years, range 39-87 years)] were gathered from 3 institutions. RFA and cryoablation were performed on 23 patients each. The median number of ablation needle was 2 (range 1-4) and 4 (range 3-5, p < 0.0001) in RFA and cryoablation, respectively. Technique efficacy defined as coverage of the tumor by ablative zone, adverse events, local tumor progression, and survival were compared between the RFA and cryoablation groups.
RESULTS: The primary technique efficacy rate was significantly higher in the cryoablation group (96%, 22/23) than in the RFA group (65%, 15/23, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the secondary technique efficacy rate after additional RFA and cryoablation [21/23 (91%) vs. 23/23 (100%); P = 0.24]. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (P > 0.99). There was no significant difference between local tumor progression rate after RFA and cryoablation [3/21 (14%) vs. 2/23 (9%); P = 0.66]. The 5-year overall survival rates were comparable between RFA and cryoablation (78 vs. 82%; P =0.82).
CONCLUSION: Other than primary technique efficacy, the clinical outcomes between RFA and cryoablation were similar in patients with cT1b RCC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 46 patients [(39 men and 7 women, median age; 73 years, range 39-87 years)] were gathered from 3 institutions. RFA and cryoablation were performed on 23 patients each. The median number of ablation needle was 2 (range 1-4) and 4 (range 3-5, p < 0.0001) in RFA and cryoablation, respectively. Technique efficacy defined as coverage of the tumor by ablative zone, adverse events, local tumor progression, and survival were compared between the RFA and cryoablation groups.
RESULTS: The primary technique efficacy rate was significantly higher in the cryoablation group (96%, 22/23) than in the RFA group (65%, 15/23, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the secondary technique efficacy rate after additional RFA and cryoablation [21/23 (91%) vs. 23/23 (100%); P = 0.24]. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (P > 0.99). There was no significant difference between local tumor progression rate after RFA and cryoablation [3/21 (14%) vs. 2/23 (9%); P = 0.66]. The 5-year overall survival rates were comparable between RFA and cryoablation (78 vs. 82%; P =0.82).
CONCLUSION: Other than primary technique efficacy, the clinical outcomes between RFA and cryoablation were similar in patients with cT1b RCC.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app