Dataset Information

Cryoablation versus Partial Nephrectomy for Clinical Stage T1 Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Cryoablation has been considered as the most efficacious ablative alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) for selected patients. Our objective is to assess the existing evidence relating to the safety and efficacy of cryoablation compared with PN for clinical T1 renal masses. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of PMC, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies containing comparison of cryoablation and PN. By utilizing those included studies, a systematic review and cumulative meta-analyses were performed to assess the safety and efficacy between cryoablation and PN for T1 renal masses. Results: 17 retrospective studies providing available data were included in our study. Significant differences were found about all oncological variables including all-cause death, cancer-specific death, metastasis and local-recurrence (p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively) between the PN group and the cryoablation group. The mean difference between two groups for percent estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease and creatinine increase was -4.84 and 0.15 respectively (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). The incidences of overall and postoperative complications in the PN group were significantly higher than that in the cryoablation group (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), but the result about intraoperative complications didn't show a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.53). Conclusions: Comparing with PN, cryoablation for clinical T1 renal tumors is associated with poorer oncological outcomes, but the existing disadvantages are accompanied by lower rate of overall and postoperative complications and superior renal functional preservation. For patients with imperative indications for nephron-sparing surgery who can't risk more invasive PN, cryoablation could be an attractive option. Owing to the inherent limitations of eligible studies, conclusions drawn from our meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and be confirmed further with well-designed randomized controlled trials with extensive follow-up length.

SUBMITTER: Deng W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6400682 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPartial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are the relevant surgical therapy options for localised renal cell carcinoma. However, debate regarding the effects of these surgical approaches continues and it is important to identify and summarise high-quality studies to make surgical treatment recommendations.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of partial nephrectomy compared with radical nephrectomy for clinically localised renal cell carcinoma.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, LILACS, Scopus, two trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 24 February 2017, together with reference lists; and contacted selected experts in the field.Selection criteriaWe included a randomised controlled trial comparing partial and radical nephrectomy for participants with small renal masses.Data collection and analysisOne review author screened all of the titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Next, two review authors independently assessed full-text reports, identified relevant studies, evaluated the eligibility of the studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The update of the literature search was performed by two independent review authors. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and data analyses.Main resultsWe identified one randomised controlled trial including 541 participants that compared partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.Based on low quality evidence, we found that time-to-death of any cause was decreased using partial nephrectomy (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18). This corresponds to 79 more deaths (5 more to 173 more) per 1000. Also based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in serious adverse events (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 22.34). Findings are consistent with 4 more surgery-related deaths (3 fewer to 78 more) per 1000.Based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in time-to-recurrence (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.24). This corresponds to 12 more recurrences (14 fewer to 70 more) per 1000. Due to the nature of reporting, we were unable to analyse overall rates for immediate and long-term adverse events. We found no evidence on haemodialysis or quality of life.Reasons for downgrading related to study limitations (lack of blinding, cross-over), imprecision and indirectness (a substantial proportion of patients were ultimately found not to have a malignant tumour). Based on the finding of a single trial, we were unable to conduct any subgroup or sensitivity analyses.Authors' conclusionsPartial nephrectomy may be associated with a decreased time-to-death of any cause. With regards to surgery-related mortality, cancer-specific survival and time-to-recurrence, partial nephrectomy appears to result in little to no difference.

Project description:Percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) can be an alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) in selected patients with stage T1 renal tumours. Existing meta-analyses regarding ablative techniques compared both laparoscopic and PCA with PN. That is why we decided to perform a meta-analysis that focused solely on PCA. The aim of this study was to compare the complications and functional and oncological outcomes between PCA and PN. A systematic literature search was performed in January 2024. Data for dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Effect measures for the local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were expressed as pooled hazard ratios with 95% CIs. Among 6487 patients included in the 14 selected papers, 1554 (23.9%) and 4924 (76.1%) underwent PCA and PN, respectively. Compared with the PN group, patients undergoing PCA had significantly lower overall and major postoperative complication rates. There was no difference in renal function between PCA and PN groups. When analysing collective data for cT1 renal carcinoma, PCA was associated with worse LRFS compared with PN. However, subgroup analysis revealed that in the case of PCA, LRFS was not decreased in patients with cT1a tumours. Moreover, patients undergoing robotic-assisted PN had improved LRFS compared with those undergoing PCA. No significant differences were observed between PCA and PN in terms of MFS and CSS. Finally, PCA was associated with worse OS than PN in both collective and subgroup analyses. In conclusion, PCA is associated with favourable postoperative complication rates relative to PN. Regarding LRFS, PCA is not worse than PN in cT1a tumours but has a substantially relevant disadvantage in cT1b tumours. Also, RAPN might be the only surgical modality that provides better LRFS than PCA. In cT1 tumours, PCA shows MFS and CSS comparable to PN. Lastly, PCA is associated with a shorter OS than PN.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and focal therapy (FT) are popular trends for small renal masses (SRMs). However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MIPN and FT of SRMs. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative, renal functional, and oncologic outcomes of MIPN and FT in SRMs.MethodsWe have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed for articles between MIPN (robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy) and FT {radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation (CA), irreversible electroporation, non-thermal [irreversible electroporation (IRE)] ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)}. We calculated pooled mean difference (MD), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (CRD42021260787).ResultsA total of 26 articles (n = 4,420) were included in the study. Compared with MIPN, the operating time (OP) of FT had significantly lower (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I2 = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (EBL) of FT had significantly less (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I2 = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), length of stay (LOS) had shorter (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I2 = 92.2%, P < 0.0001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of FT was significantly lower decrease (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I2 = 92.2%, P < 0.0001). However, FT possessed lower risk in minor complications (Clavien 1-2) (OR, 0.69; CI, 0.45 to 1.07; I2 = 47%, P = 0.023) and overall complications (OR, 0.71; CI, 0.51 to 0.99; I2 = 49.2%, P = 0.008). Finally, there are no obvious difference between FT and MIPN in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications (P > 0.05).ConclusionFT has more advantages in protecting kidney function, reducing bleeding, shortening operating time, and shortening the length of stay. There is no difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications. For the minimally invasive era, we need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of all aspects to make comprehensive choices.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021260787).

Project description:AimThis study aims to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of cryoablation (CA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) for managing small renal masses in patients with solitary kidneys. The study seeks to assess the efficacy and safety of both interventions, evaluating their impact on kidney function and their ability to mitigate cancer recurrence.MethodsSearches were systematically conducted on PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, SinoMed, and Google Scholar, identifying seven observational studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata v.12.0 and Review Manager version 5.2. Results for dichotomous variables are expressed using odds ratios, and weighted mean differences are used for continuous variables.ResultsOur findings revealed that patients undergoing CA experienced significantly shorter operative time (p < 0.0001), reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.00001), a shorter length of stay (p = 0.0001), and fewer postoperative complications (p = 0.02) compared to those undergoing PN. Although the CA group exhibited a lower transfusion rate (p = 0.69) compared with the PN group, the difference was not statistically significant. The combined data analysis demonstrated a significantly lower increase in serum creatinine levels after surgery in the CA group compared with the PN group (p = 0.003). Similarly, there was a noteworthy decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate after surgery in the PN group compared with the CA group (p < 0.0001). While not statistically significant, the CA group showed a lower postoperative dialysis rate (p = 0.11). Regarding oncological outcomes, the analysis revealed no significant differences between CA and PN concerning local recurrence (p = 0.2) and distant metastasis (p = 0.12), respectively.ConclusionsOur analysis indicates comparable efficacy between PN and CA in controlling tumour recurrence and metastasis. However, CA is associated with superior preservation of renal function, significantly enhanced perioperative outcomes, and fewer postoperative complications. Based on our data, it can be inferred that the scope for applying CA might be expanded to encompass more patients seeking a less invasive treatment option.

Dataset Information

Cryoablation versus Partial Nephrectomy for Clinical Stage T1 Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets