title: Update on thermal ablation of renal cell carcinoma: oncologic control, technique comparison, renal function preservation, and new modalities.
abstract: Recent studies report mid- and long-term oncologic control with thermal ablation for small renal tumors to be equivalent to surgery. Comparisons of cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and laparoscopic approaches to percutaneous approaches report equivalent results. Studies report little or no decrease in renal function after ablation of renal tumors. These studies support the use of percutaneous thermal ablation for treatment of small renal malignancies. Studies also report that percutaneous ablation is a safe and durable treatment of the primary tumor in stage IV patients, ultrasound guidance for percutaneous ablation can be effective, and chyluria is relatively common after RFA. Results were disappointing for newer ablation techniques, including microwave, irreversible electroporation, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. These techniques require improvements before their use in place of RFA and cryoablation. The rates of diagnostic and subtype-specific renal tumor biopsies can be improved by using both aspirate and core techniques.
authors.affiliation: Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. rzagoria@wakehealth.edu
authors.forename: Ronald J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Zagoria
authors.forename: David D
authors.initials: DD
authors.lastname: Childs
mesh_terms: D002292:Carcinoma, Renal Cell / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends*; D006801:Humans; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014553:Urinary Tract Physiological Phenomena
references.citation: Can Urol Assoc J. 2010 Dec;4(6):399-402
references.pmid: 21191499
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Dec;24(12):1909-13
references.pmid: 20946062
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Mar;77(3):754-60
references.pmid: 21111458
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Jul;24(7):1097-100
references.pmid: 20575675
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Oct;24(10):1687-91
references.pmid: 20818985
references.citation: Jpn J Radiol. 2010 Jul;28(6):460-8
references.pmid: 20661697
references.citation: Indian J Urol. 2010 Jul;26(3):331-7
references.pmid: 21116349
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Apr;196(4):935-9
references.pmid: 21427348
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Jul;186(1):35-41
references.pmid: 21571336
references.citation: Acad Radiol. 2011 Jan;18(1):97-100
references.pmid: 20880723
references.citation: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011 Jul;22(7):924-7
references.pmid: 21507680
references.citation: Acta Radiol. 2011 Jul 1;52(6):680-5
references.pmid: 21525107
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):798-802
references.pmid: 21256566
references.citation: Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012 Aug;63(3 Suppl):S23-32
references.pmid: 21145195
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Jul;78(1):93-8
references.pmid: 21550636
references.citation: J Urol. 2010 Nov;184(5):1882-7
references.pmid: 20846689
references.citation: BJU Int. 2011 May;107(9):1376-80
references.pmid: 21062399
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):792-7
references.pmid: 21324512
references.citation: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011 Feb;34(1):132-8
references.pmid: 20711837
references.citation: Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Jun;35(6):827-35
references.pmid: 21552112
references.citation: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011 May;22(5):611-21
references.pmid: 21439847
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Jun;77(6):1393-7
references.pmid: 21492910
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1591-7
references.pmid: 21419445
references.citation: Cancer. 2010 Jul 1;116(13):3135-42
references.pmid: 20564644