OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma (RCC), benign tumors (BTs), and nondiagnostic (ND) biopsies after renal cryoablation (RC).
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 114 patients who underwent RC between 2003 and 2013. Patients were stratified according to biopsy histopathology results-RCC, BT, and ND biopsy. We recorded patient demographics and tumor features and examined oncologic outcomes among the 3 groups.
RESULTS: RC was performed in 114 patients with 117 tumors. Seventy-two tumors (61.5%) were RCC, 18 (15.4%) were BTs (oncocytoma or angiomyolipoma), and 27 (23.1%) were ND. Patient characteristics and tumor features were similar among the 3 groups. The median follow-up was 26.5, 26.0, and 22.0 months in the RCC, BT, and ND biopsy groups, respectively (P = .18). Residual disease occurred in the RCC (1.4%) and ND biopsy (7.4%) groups, but not in the BT group (P = .19). All 9 patients (12.5%) who developed recurrent disease had biopsy-proven RCC. The 2- and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates (RFS) for patients with biopsy-proven RCC were 90.2% and 81.2%, respectively. Because no patient in the BT and ND biopsy groups had a recurrence, their RFS was 100%.
CONCLUSION: No patient with a BT or ND biopsy developed a local recurrence with short-term follow-up, whereas a recurrence developed in 12.5% of biopsy-proven RCC tumors. RFS for patients with biopsy-proven RCC was worse than the other 2 biopsy groups, although not statistically significant. Long-term follow-up in a larger cohort of patients is needed to further evaluate these preliminary findings.
Written by:
Babaian KN, Okhunov Z, Juncal S, Ordon M, Lusch A, Zand T, Andreoni C, Landman J. Are you the author?
Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA; Department of Urology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Department of Urology, University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Reference: Urology. 2015 Mar;85(3):605-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.11.016
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25733273