Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 27, 2025
Thermal Ablation for the Treatment of Abdominal Tumors
Published on: March 7, 2011
Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is an effective treatment option for small renal masses, comparable to partial
José Pablo Pedraza-Sánchez1, Reyes Chaves-Marcos2, Javier Mazuecos-Quirós3
1Urology Clinical Unit, University Hospital of Jerez de La Frontera, Ctra. Trebujena, S/N, 11407, Jerez de La Frontera, Cádiz, Spain. p.pedraza.sanchez@gmail.com.
Objectives:
The standard therapy for small renal masses (SRMs) remains partial nephrectomy (PN), which is associated with relatively high morbidity and complication rate. Therefore, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) emerges as an alternative therapy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and oncological outcomes of PRFA versus PN.
Methods:
A multicenter non-inferiority study with retrospective analysis of 291 patients with SRMs (N0M0), who underwent PN or PRFA (2:1), recruited prospectively from two hospitals in the Andalusian Public Health System, Spain, between 2014 and 2021. Comparisons of treatment features were evaluated using the t test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, Fisher test, and Cochran-Armitage trend test. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates in the overall study population.
Results:
A total of 291 consecutive patients were identified; 111 and 180 patients underwent PRFA and PN, respectively. Median follow-up time was 38 and 48 months, and mean hospitalization days were 1.04 and 3.57 days, respectively. The variables underpinned with high surgical risk were significantly increased in PRFA compared to those in PN (mean age was 64.56 and 57.47 years, the solitary kidney presence was 12.6% and 5.6%, ASA score ≥ 3 was 36% and 14.5%, respectively). The rest of oncological outcomes were comparable amongst PRFA and PN. Patients undergoing PRFA did not improve OS, LRFS, and MFS compared to those undergoing PN. Limitations comprise retrospective design and limited statistical power.
Conclusion:
PRFA for SMRs in high-risk patients is non-inferior in terms of oncological outcomes and safety compared to PN.
Clinical Relevance Statement:
Our study has a direct clinical application as it proves that radiofrequency ablation is an effective and uncomplicated therapeutic option for patients with small renal masses.
Key Points:
•There are non-inferiority results in overall survival, local recurrence-free survival, and metastasis-free survival between PRFA and PN. •Our two-center study showed that PRFA is non-inferior to PN in oncological outcomes. •Contrast-enhanced power ultrasound-guided PRFA provides an effective therapy for T1 renal tumors.
