Percutaneous Ablation versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Completely Endophytic Renal Masses: A Multicenter Trifecta Analysis with a Minimum 3-Year Follow-Up - Beyond the Abstract

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is the preferred method of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) for renal tumors. On the other side, percutaneous tumor ablation (PTA) is a safe option, especially in unfit surgical candidates. Completely endophytic renal masses represent a surgical challenge, given the absence of visual clues, the presence of intact overlying healthy parenchyma, and the likely proximity to vascular and caliceal structures. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RAPN and PTA for completely endophytic renal masses in a multicenter international cohort of patients.

We retrospectively analyzed data from seven high-volume U.S. and European centers for patients who underwent RAPN or PTA (including cryoablation, radiofrequency, or microwave ablation) for a renal mass between 2010 and 2020. Patients with previous kidney cancer surgery or multiple renal tumors were excluded. We included patients who had a renal mass score 3 points for the “E” domain of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (completely endophytic). Follow-up protocol included a CT scan in both groups and relapse was defined as detection of a new lesion after RAPN or a persisting/recurring enhancement after PTA. Trifecta for RAPN was defined as no major complication + no significant (<25%) eGFR reduction from baseline + negative surgical margins. For PTA: no major complication + no significant (<25%) eGFR reduction from baseline + no technical failure (no residual mass/enhancement at 6 months).

In our population, PTA approach was adopted in older and more comorbid patients. During follow-up, we observed a worse ∆eGFR at 1-year follow-up, whereas no difference was found at last follow-up (mean time 40.4 and 35.6 months for RAPN and PTA, respectively). However, looking at the baseline characteristics, PTA cohort showed a significantly worse eGFR than the RAPN one (69.7 vs 89.1, p<0.001) and a higher rate of CKD>III stage (31.5% vs 5%, p<0.001). This selection bias and the worse baseline characteristics of the PTA cohort might explain the worsening of renal function and the higher rate of new-onset CKD at the latest PTA follow-up. Relatively to the surgical outcomes, PTA showed advantages in terms of lower mean operation time (OT, p<0.001) and ∆Hb at discharge (p<0.001), and higher Hb at discharge (p=0.03). Additionally, minor post-operative complication rates were lower for the PTA group (p<0.001), while no difference was found for major complication rates. Trifecta was achieved in 65.3% and 58.8% for RAPN and PTA groups respectively, with no significant difference. We did not find a difference for recurrence rate. The two cohorts were similar for RFS (p=0.154), too; however, it is worth mentioning that metastases occurred in 3 patients of the PTA group.

Despite the intrinsic limitations of a retrospective study lacking central review and standardization of pre-and post-operative management among the different centers, our study confirms that PTA as an effective treatment option for completely endophytic renal masses, offering low complication rates and good mid-term and functional and oncologic outcomes. RAPN remains the preferred option for younger and less comorbid patients.

Written by: C. Cerrato1 & S.D. Pandolfo2

  1. University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
  2. Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
Read the Abstract