ABSTRACT
Objectives: To analyse variation in clinical management of cT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the Netherlands related to surgical hospital volume (HV). Materials and methods: Patients diagnosed with cT1 RCC during 2014-2020 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient and tumour characteristics were retrieved. Hospitals performing kidney cancer surgery were categorised by annual HV as low (HV < 25), medium (HV = 25-49) and high (HV > 50). Trends over time in nephron-sparing strategies for cT1a and cT1b were evaluated. Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics of (partial) nephrectomies were compared by HV. Variation in applied treatment was studied by HV. Results: Between 2014 and 2020, 10 964 patients were diagnosed with cT1 RCC. Over time, a clear increase in nephron-sparing management was observed. The majority of cT1a underwent a partial nephrectomy (PN), although less PNs were applied over time (from 48% in 2014 to 41% in 2020). Active surveillance (AS) was increasingly applied (from 18% to 32%). For cT1a, 85% received nephron-sparing management in all HV categories, either with AS, PN or focal therapy (FT). For T1b, radical nephrectomy (RN) remained the most common treatment (from 57% to 50%). Patients in high-volume hospitals underwent more often PN (35%) for T1b compared with medium HV (28%) and low HV (19%). Conclusion: HV is related to variation in the management of cT1 RCC in the Netherlands. The EAU guidelines have recommended PN as preferred treatment for cT1 RCC. In most patients with cT1a, nephron-sparing management was applied in all HV categories, although differences in applied strategy were found and PN was more frequently used in high HV. For T1b, high HV was associated with less appliance of RN, whereas PN was increasingly used. Therefore, closer guideline adherence was found in high-volume hospitals.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the primary safety and oncological outcome of percutaneous cryoablation in patients with non-visceral metastases of the abdominal cavity after prior surgery. METHODS: All patients with non-visceral metastases after prior abdominal surgery, treated with percutaneous cryoablation, and at least one year of follow-up were retrospectively identified. Technical success was achieved if the ice-ball had a minimum margin of 10 mm in three dimensions on the per-procedural CT images. Complications were recorded using the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) classification system. Time until disease progression was monitored with follow-up CT and/or MRI. Local control was defined as absence of recurrence at the site of ablation. RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent cryoablation for 14 non-visceral metastases (mean diameter 20 ± 9 mm). Primary tumor origin was renal cell (n = 4), colorectal (n = 3), granulosa cell (n = 2), endometrium (n = 1) and appendix (n = 1) carcinoma. Treated metastases were localized retroperitoneal (n = 8), intraperitoneal (n = 2), or in the abdominal wall (n = 4). Technical success was achieved in all procedures. After a median follow-up of 27 months (12-38 months), all patients were alive. Local control was observed in 10/14 non-visceral metastases, and the earliest local progression was detected after ten months. No major adverse events occurred. One patient suffered a minor asymptomatic adverse event. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study suggests that cryoablation can be a minimal invasive treatment option in a selected group of patients with non-visceral metastases in the abdominal cavity after prior surgery.
