Safety and Technical Feasibility of Percutaneous Renal Cryoablation of Central Tumors without Pyeloperfusion.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and technical success of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) without pyeloperfusion in 94 patients with central renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all central renal tumors treated by PCA without pyeloperfusion was performed. Central tumors were defined as those involving the renal sinus fat on preprocedural cross-sectional imaging. Patient demographics and baseline tumor characteristics were recorded. The details of the PCA procedure, primary and secondary technical success, rates of local recurrence, adverse events (AEs), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were compiled. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients (48 females [51%]; mean age, 68.2 years [range, 38-87 years]) with 94 central renal tumors were included. The mean maximal tumor diameter and mean RENAL nephrometry score were 37 mm (range, 15-67 mm) and 8 (range, 4-11), respectively. Primary technical success was achieved in 94% (n = 88) of procedures. Of the patients who did not achieve primary technical success, 3 underwent successful repeat PCA (secondary technical success, 97%; n = 91/94). The other 3 patients were surveilled for residual disease. Twenty-four patients (26%) required hydrodissection during PCA. Six patients (6%) experienced major AEs after PCA including hemorrhage requiring embolization (n = 3), hemorrhage requiring transfusions with admission (n = 2), and perinephric abscess necessitating drain placement (n = 1). Twenty-two patients (23%) experienced minor AEs. Nine patients (10%) experienced local recurrence during the follow-up period. OS was 94% (n = 88/94), whereas CSS was 98% (n = 92/94) during the study follow-up period (mean, 16 months [range, 1-102 months]). CONCLUSIONS: PCA of central renal tumors appears to be safe with high rates of technical success, even without the use of pyeloperfusion.

Limited ability of the renal ablation-specific (MC)2 risk scoring system to predict major adverse events from percutaneous renal microwave ablation.

PURPOSE: To access if the (MC)2 scoring system can identify patients at risk for major adverse events following percutaneous microwave ablation of renal tumors. METHODS: Retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent percutaneous renal microwave ablation at two centers. Patient demographics, medical histories, laboratory work, technical details of the procedure, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. The (MC)2 score was calculated for each patient. Patients were assigned to low-risk (<5), moderate-risk (5-8) and high-risk (>8) groups. Adverse events were graded according to the criteria from the Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients (mean age = 67.8 [95%CI 65.5-69.9], 66 men) were included. 10 (8.6%) and 22 (19.0%) experienced major or minor adverse events, respectively. The mean (MC)2 score for patients with major adverse events (4.6 [95%CI 3.3-5.8]) was not higher than those with either minor adverse events (4.1 [95%CI 3.4-4.8], p = 0.49) or no adverse events (3.7 [95%CI 3.4-4.1], p = 0.25). However, mean tumor size was greater in those with major adverse events (3.1 cm [95%CI 2.0-4.1]) than minor adverse events (2.0 cm [95%CI 1.8-2.3], p = 0.01). Patients with central tumors were also more likely to experience major adverse events compared to those without central tumors (p = 0.02). The area under the receiver operator curve to predict major adverse events was 0.61 (p = 0.15), indicating a poor ability of the (MC)2 score to predict major adverse events. CONCLUSION: The (MC)2 risk scoring system does not accurately identify patients at risk for major adverse events from percutaneous microwave ablation of renal tumors. The mean tumor size and central tumor location may serve as a better indicator for risk assessment of major adverse events.