Comparison of clinical outcome between pyeloperfused versus non-pyeloperfused microwave ablation of renal cell carcinoma.

Abstract

PurposeWe present the outcomes of microwave ablation (MWA) of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with and without pyeloperfusion.Material and methodsA retrospective review of patients’ records was undertaken to identify patients with RCC, who were treated with MWA with and without adjunctive pyeloperfusion. The distance between the tumour and ureter as well as the tumour size were measured on axial imaging. Pyeloperfusion was performed in nine patients in this series after placement of a ureteral stent and instilment of diluted contrast into the ureter. MWAs of the tumours were performed under computed tomography (CT) guidance. Hydrodissection was performed to displace at-risk organs. Creatinine was measured as renal function index after and before the procedure. A CT scan was performed at the end of the procedure and also after one, three, and six months, to identify the presence of residual disease and complications.ResultsEighteen biopsies of proven RCC were treated with 20 sessions of MWA. The average follow-up time for this study was 180 days. The average distance between the ureter and the tumour in axial CT view was 20.8 (± 2.9) mm. Primary efficacy was achieved in 88% of pyeloperfused patients and in 100% of the non-pyeloperfused patients. Two pyeloperfused patients required secondary procedure, and full secondary efficacy was achieved for both. There was only one grade 2 urological complication, which occurred in a patient who underwent pyeloperfusion. Creatinine was not significantly different after the procedure in this study (p-value 0.4).ConclusionIn this study MWAs of RCCs were successfully performed using pyeloperfusion as a protective measure against thermal injury to the ureter.