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.
Keywords: Cryoablation; Radiofrequency ablation; Renal cell carcinoma; Stage T1b.