[Ablative therapy in kidney cancer: Indications]. / Thérapies ablatives dans le cancer du rein : indications.

BACKGROUND: Ablative therapies (AT) in kidney cancer are rising. It's important to evaluate the situation of this therapy. The aim of this study is to identify the best indications for AT treatment for kidney cancer. METHODS: Review of literature using Medline and Embase databases. Study were selected based on scientific relevance. Clinical keys centered on the best requirements to indicate ablative therapies. RESULTS: AT is indicated according to specific tumor and patients criteria. A good initial evaluation is essential (imaging, pathology, renal function and general condition of the patient). AT gets the best results when applied to the following tumor criteria: solid tumor, length<3cm, exophytic localization, RENAL score<8. In few cases, AT could be discussed as an alternative to the reference treatment, sparing surgery: life expectancy evaluated between 3 and 7 years, chronic renal failure or single kidney, transplanted kidney, familial tumors. AT can be used in first line, post-surgery after local recurrence or for distant metastasis. Like every other innovative technic, indications of AT would be adjust with learning curve and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: AT have to be included as a valid treatment for kidney cancer<4cm. The respect of actual indications and collection of results of AT compared to surveillance and surgery, would determinate the evolution of AT indications in the future.

[Percutaneous renal ablation: Pre-, per-, post-interventional evaluation modalities and adapted management]. / Traitement ablatif pour cancer du rein : modalités d'évaluation pré-, per-, post-intervention et prise en charge adaptée.

OBJECTIVES: Ablative treatment (AT) rise is foreseen, validation of steps to insure good proceedings is needed. By looking over the process of the patient, this study evaluates the requirements and choices needed in every step of the management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, using (MeSH) words and we looked for all the studies. Investigators graded the strength of evidence in terms of methodology, language and relevance. RESULTS: Explanations of AT proposal rather than partial nephrectomy or surveillance have to be discussed in a consultation shared by urologist and interventional radiologist. Per-procedure choices depend on predictable ballistic difficulties. High volume, proximity of the hilum or of a risky organ are in favor of general anesthesia, cryotherapy and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI). Percutaneous approach should be privileged, as it seems as effective as the laparoscopic approach. Early and delayed complications have to be treated both by urologist and radiologist. Surveillance by CT/MRI insure of the lack of contrast-enhanced in the treated area. Patients and tumors criteria, in case of incomplete treatment or recurrence, are the key of the appropriate treatment: surgery, second session of AT, surveillance. CONCLUSION: AT treatments require patient's comprehension, excellent coordination of the partnership between urologist and radiologist and relevant choices during intervention.

[Ablative therapy in kidney cancer: Oncological, functional, perioperative outcomes and cost]. / Thérapies ablatives dans le cancer du rein : résultats oncologiques, périopératoires, fonctionnels et médico-économiques.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of kidney cancer has increased significantly over the past few decades presumably due to the increased use of imaging. The aim of this article is to describe contemporary outcomes of ablative therapy and to compare them to other therapeutic options in terms of oncological, functional, perioperative outcomes and cost. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, using (MeSH) words; from January 2005 through May 2017, and we looked for all the studies. Investigators graded the strength of evidence in terms of methodology, language and relevance. RESULTS: Ninety-one articles were analyzed. We described the outcomes of ablative therapy in relation to the energy used and the approach, and compared these outcomes to the other therapeutic options in terms of oncological, functional and perioperative outcomes. We analyzed these studies in order to search for predictive factors influencing the results of ablative therapy. We also analyzed the economic burden of small renal tumor management. CONCLUSION: The strength of evidence is based almost entirely on retrospective studies and is susceptible to the inherent limitations of this study design. Although, the evidence was low among studies, our revue showed that, in elderly patients treated with ablative therapy for cT1a tumors, the cancer-specific survival was comparable to partial nephrectomy with differences in overall survival that are explained by competing risks of death in the old population. Considering the functional results, the renal function preservation seems to be comparable between the 2 groups while the perioperative morbidity is higher in the partial nephrectomy group. The evidence base medicine at this time cannot support the extension of the indications of ablative therapy beyond the actual implementations.