Percutaneous Ablation of Kidney Tumors in Nonsurgical Candidates
Percutaneous Ablation of Kidney Tumors in Nonsurgical Candidates
Over 35,000 new cases of renal
cell carcinoma (RCC) occurred
in the United States in
2004, most of them detected as
incidental imaging findings on computed
tomography (CT), magnetic resonance
(MR), or ultrasound.[2,3]
Since most of these tumors are relatively
small when detected, the classic
clinical triad of flank pain,
hematuria, and palpable mass is now
rarely encountered. Many of these incidentally
discovered RCCs are also
slowly growing. Bosniak et al showed
that RCCs smaller than or equal to 3.5
cm grow at an average rate of 0 to 1.1
cm/yr (mean 0.36 cm/yr).
Most RCCs are surgically removed,
and resection of RCC remains the standard
of care. Traditional treatment
has been open complete nephrectomy,
but the search for less invasive
procedures as well as for nephronsparing
surgery has led to alternative
surgical approaches.[6,7] These include
partial open and laparoscopic
partial or complete nephrectomy. For
appropriately selected tumors, nephron-
sparing resection has shown outcomes
that are equivalent to total
Open, partial, and laparoscopic
nephrectomies are now available to
most patients. For some patients, however,
an even less invasive procedure
may be indicated. Patients with solitary
kidneys or limited renal function,
for example, may not tolerate even a
partial nephrectomy without requiring
postoperative dialysis. For patients
with bilateral or multiple RCCs, further
partial nephrectomy may tip them
to dialysis. Finally, patients with extensive
comorbid conditions may face
unacceptable risks from surgery and
Imaging surveillance has been advocated
for elderly patients with comorbid
conditions placing them at
high risk for operative complications
or complications related to anesthesia,
because of the slow growth of
these small tumors and the strong likelihood
that many of them will never
become clinically significant. This
course of action may result in unacceptable
patient anxiety, however.
Percutaneous ablation may provide
an alternative treatment option for all
these groups of patients. Ablation of
RCC left in situ has been performed
intraoperatively using cryoablation
before percutaneous cryoprobes became
available. Cryoablation induces
tumor necrosis by freezing
tissue. The first needle applicators suitable
for percutaneous application were
radiofrequency electrodes. Thus, most
of the published literature on percutaneous
ablation of renal masses is on
RF ablation, which induces tumor necrosis
via lethal hyperthermia. Now
that percutaneous cryoprobes are
available, experience with imageguided
percutaneous cryoablation will
undoubtedly increase. A microwave
ablation system with percutaneous
applicators, also based on hyperthermia,
has become available in the United
States, but no published reports of
its use in renal tumors left in situ have
In 1997, Zlotta et al reported the
first percutaneous application of renal
RFA, confirming its safety and
feasibility under local analgesia. In
his initial series, three tumors were
subsequently resected, confirming
RFA's ability to create extensive local
necrosis in in vivo renal tumors.
In 1999, McGovern et al reported the
first in situ renal tumor treated solely
with RFA. In 2000, Gervais et al
presented the first series of such patients
treated solely with RFA.
Nine tumors in eight patients underwent
RFA with postablation imaging
surveillance to monitor treatment response.
Because the tumors were left
in situ, assessment of tumor response
was performed with imaging. Gervais
et al applied a CT or MR interpretive
scheme based on extrapolation of radiologic-
pathologic correlation work
in liver tumor ablations performed by
Goldberg et al.[11,12] In this study,
necrosis was shown to correlate with
lack of enhancement to within 2 mm
and tumor enhancement was shown
to correlate with viable tumor.
This interpretative scheme has since
been widely applied by other investigators.
Since these early reports, multiple
series of renal tumors treated with
percutaneous ablation in vivo and left
in situ have been published.[13-26]
Table 1 summarizes the results of the
larger published series of percutaneous
RFA of renal tumors. These series
reveal that for small renal tumors,
RFA results in complete necrosis at
imaging in 79% to 100% of cases.[13-
26] Differences in results are related
partly to differences in protocol. In
one protocol in which early residual
disease was treated with repeat percutaneous
ablation, for example, 100%
complete necrosis at imaging was
achieved for all tumors 4 cm or smaller.[
13] The series with the lowest success
rate (79%) used less powerful
generators than are now commonly
available, perhaps resulting in less
complete ablation. Modern systems
average over 90% complete necrosis
in small tumors. The follow-up
period following renal tumor ablation
has been short, however, averaging
less than 3 years. Although early experience
is encouraging, long-term
outcomes are necessary to provide
meaningful comparison to standard
Fewer published reports on percutaneous
cryoablation exist, but laparoscopic
experience suggests we can
expect similar outcomes.[8,27] Gill
et al reported on 56 patients, 36 with
RCC, who underwent laparoscopic
renal cryoablation with residual/recurrent
RCC at biopsy in two tumors.
Enhancement characteristics were not
reported, but 17 tumors had disappeared
by 3 years. In a smaller
percutaneous series, Shingleton and
Sewell performed MR-guided cryoablation
in 14 patients with 15 renal
masses in solitary kidneys, two of
whom were lost to follow-up. Of
the remaining 12 patients, 10 (83%)
underwent complete necrosis at imaging,
with a mean of 17 months of
Case selection for percutaneous ablation involves consideration of three broad issues: patient factors, tumor factors, and feasibility factors. Patient Factors
Factors that define the clinical indications for percutaneous ablation of RCC include comorbid conditions rendering surgery risky, limited renal function, and multiple RCC or its predisposition as with von Hippel-Lindau disease or familial types of RCC. Patient evaluation is best done in consultation with a urologist experienced in treatment of RCC to ensure that all surgical options have been considered. A collaborative approach consisting of a multidisciplinary team with members from urology and interventional radiology provides the best combined expertise for successful patient management and outcomes. Tumor Factors
Tumor size and location must be considered. Small tumors are ideal because of the technical limitations of the ablation systems with respect to the volume of tissue that undergoes necrosis. The size criterion for inclusion of a "small" tumor in RFA has ranged from 2.5 to 4 cm depending on the series.[13-26] A recent RCC analysis based on 100 cases suggests that 4 cm is an appropriate definition, with all tumors 4 cm or smaller undergoing complete necrosis, 92% (48/ 52) in one ablation session and the remaining 8% in two sessions. Larger tumors have been completely ablated in some series, but experience with these is less extensive, and increasing size often requires an increasing number of ablation sessions.[ 13] The largest tumor completely treated with percutaneous ablation alone was 5.5 cm. Some have combined embolization with ablation for larger tumors.[21,22] Tumor location also affects ablation results. The ideal renal tumor for percutaneous ablation is an exophytic RCC. The surrounding perirenal fat serves as an insulator to allow higher temperatures of longer duration to be achieved with RFA. Central tumors, on the other hand, can prove more difficult to ablate because of proximity to large hilar vessels. Blood flow provides constant cooling during RFA, thus limiting the effect of the ablation. Gervais et al demonstrated that central location did not necessarily preclude complete ablation, but central tumors as a group were less likely to undergo complete necrosis compared with exophytic tumors. Feasibility
Case evaluation assesses whether the case is feasible and safe using a percutaneous approach. A safe percutaneous path to the tumor, avoiding bowel and large vessels, must exist. Even if a percutaneous approach is possible with the needle applicator, the proximity of the tumor to other structures that might be damaged by thermal injury must be considered. For renal tumors, this means careful attention to the location of bowel, ureter, and ureteropelvic junction. Even when these structures are adjacent to tumor or within a few millimeters, percutaneous ablation may still be possible if the structures can be separated from tumor via positional maneuvers, hydrodissection, instillation of CO2, balloon displacement, or manual compression.[14,28,29] For tumors that cannot be separated from vital structures, surgical approaches to ablation or resection or imaging follow-up remain options. Performing Ablation Planning and performing a renal tumor ablation requires diligent attention to the findings on preablation diagnostic imaging. Tumor margins must be known to plan the desired size of the ablation zone. Pavlovich et al emphasized preservation of normal renal parenchyma in their early series.[ 19] This technique may in part have been responsible for their lower rate of complete ablation. Although achievement of a 5- to 10-mm margin of normal renal tissue at the RCC/kidney interface is not mandatory, Ogan et al have advocated striving for a small margin of renal tissue when performing ablation to help ensure more complete tumor necrosis.[ 23] An approach that includes margins in the planned ablation zone is further supported by the work of Goldberg et al, who found that viable tumor cells remained present at the margins in four of five liver tumors where the zone of ablation was equal in size to the tumor in the absence of enhancement at CT. These spatial resolution limitations of imaging technology must be considered when planning and performing percutaneous ablation. Although some have advocated performing the first RFA at the tumor/kidney interface to devascularize this area, recent work suggests that this approach does not produce outcomes different from other approaches. A single applicator may not result in an ablation zone of adequate size, or the geometry of the ablation zone may not correspond to the tumor geometry, leaving viable tumor. For this reason, multiple applications are necessary. Cryoablation uses multiple single cryoprobes, placed and activated simultaneously, until multiple freezethaw cycles are completed. On the other hand, most RF electrode systems are applied as a single applicator with multiple overlapping ablations performed in one session by repositioning of the electrode after each ablation to cover the entire tumor volume (Figure 1). New technology allows up to three simultaneous electrode placements, with the generator delivering power to each electrode sequentially.[ 30] Computed tomography, MR, or ultrasound can provide imaging guidance for positioning of the needle applicators.[ 13,25,27] Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Magnetic resonance can provide accurate assessment of the treatment margin in multiple planes while the patient is still on the table, but it is expensive, not widely available for interventional use, and requires special monitoring equipment as well as special MRcompatible applicators. Ultrasound can provide rapid real-time evaluation of needle position without the use of ionizing radiation, but it may not easily demonstrate some tumors, particularly on the left. Echoes generated by RFA and the echogenic proximal edge of the iceball at cryoablation preclude accurate monitoring of the treatment effect and limit visibility for subsequent repositioning of RF applicators for overlapping ablations. Computed tomography provides accurate localization of the needle applicators, and visibility of the applicators is not limited by treatment effects such as gas formation or small amounts of hemorrhage. Neither ultrasound nor noncontrast CT predicts the precise location of the treatment margin. Near the end of an ablation, a bolus of contrast material may be useful in demonstrating remaining tumor. Contrast material may concentrate near the ablation zone, however, limiting the utility of subsequent boluses of contrast material. Radiofrequency systems allow for electrocautery of the needle tract upon removal. Tract ablation theoretically limits tract seeding and the risk of hemorrhage. Patient Management
Issues to consider in preparing a patient for ablation include tissue diagnosis, status of outpatient vs shortstay inpatient care, and choice of sedation vs anesthesia. Percutaneous ablation of RCC can be performed as an outpatient procedure, but admission may be required to allow complete recovery from sedation. Intravenous sedation is used in many cases (midazolam 2 to 5 mg, fentanyl 100 to 300 μg, meperidine 50 to 100 mg). Selected patients may require general anesthesia if they do not meet institutional criteria for IV sedation. Some institutions prefer to perform all cases under general anesthesia. Differential diagnosis of a solid enhancing mass on CT or MRI includes RCC, fat poor angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma, metastases, or lymphoma. Definitive pathologic diagnosis of a renal mass left in situ requires needle biopsy. Traditionally, for management purposes, urologists have treated a solid enhancing renal mass at CT or MR as renal cell carcinoma. Since needle biopsies may miss RCC in a small number of cases, all these masses were resected, providing material for histology. Leaving the renal tumor in situ after ablation, however, provides no tissue diagnosis to help guide postablation management. A recent report found that 10 of 27 patients referred for ablation had benign masses. Thus, most patients undergo needle biopsy to establish a diagnosis prior to ablation. In selected cohorts, such as patients with von Hippel-Lindau, some have argued against biopsy prior to ablation because the likelihood of RCC is high regardless of biopsy results. This area remains controversial. Following ablation, imaging follow- up with unenhanced and enhanced CT or MR allows for response assessment (Figures 1E and 1F). Although imaging intervals vary among institutions, most radiologists perform imaging within one month for prompt detection of residual viable tumor.[13-27] Small foci of residual viable tumor can then be ablated again. Because of the lack of longterm data on the efficacy of ablation, imaging continues indefinitely, initially at 3- to 6-month intervals and then at annual intervals once no viable tumor has been confirmed in the first year or two of follow-up. Recovery from percutaneous ablation involves the effects of sedation or anesthesia on the first day. In the first few days, patients normally experience mild to moderate local discomfort that improves over time. Postablation syndrome, flulike symptoms such as fever, muscle ache, and fatigue, is seen in a minority of patients. The syndrome is self-limiting and responds well to acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Complications are rare following RFA compared with partial nephrectomy.[ 5-7,13] The most common is hemorrhage, and this may be more common in central tumors. Urinary collecting system obstruction can occur from ureteral injury with stricture formation or from bleeding into the collecting system.[13,14] Injury to nerves from the lumbar plexus may cause transient paresthesias along cutaneous nerve distributions.[13,15,19] Tract seeding has been reported in a single case in which a cutaneous tumor was subsequently removed. There is also potential for bowel injury or pleural complication requiring thoracostomy drainage. Conclusion Percutaneous ablation of renal tumors has shown promising early results. Until long-term data are available, the use of percutaneous ablation for solid renal masses is limited to patients who are not ideal candidates for surgical resection. Tumor factors play an important role in case selection, with tumors 4 cm or smaller yielding up to 100% complete necrosis with modern ablation systems. Exophytic location provides a favorable "oven effect" from the insulating properties of the perirenal fat, while central location may make complete ablation more difficult due to the perfusion in large hilar blood vessels. Because current results come from tumors left in situ with short postablation follow-up, longterm results are necessary to compare outcomes to surgical standards. Complication rates are lower than those following partial nephrectomy. Future reports will shed light on the long-term outcomes of percutaneous ablation and the relative advantages and disadvantages of various technologies for thermal ablation.
2. Smith SJ, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, et al: Renal cell carcinoma: Earlier discovery and increased detection. Radiology 170:699-703, 1989.
3. Jayson M, Sanders H: Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 51:203-205, 1998.
4. Bosniak MA, Birnbaum BA, Krinsky GA, et al: Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: Further observations on growth. Radiology 97:589- 597, 1995.
5. Novick AC, Campbell SC: Renal tumors, in Walsh PC (ed): Campbell’s Urology, 8th ed, pp 2672-2731. Philadelphia, Saunders, 2002.
6. Uzzo RG, Novick AC: Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: Indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 166:6-18, 2001.
7. Reddan DN, Raj GV, Polascik TJ: Management of small renal tumors: An overview. Am J Med 110:558-562, 2001.
8. Gill IS, Remer EM, Hasan WA, et al: Renal cryoablation: Outcome at 3 years. J Urol 173:1903-1907, 2005.
9. Zlotta AR, Wildshutz T, Raviv G, et al: Radiofrequency interstitial tumor ablation (RITA) is a possible new modality for treatment of renal cancer: Ex vivo and in vivo experience. J Endourol 11:251-258, 1997. https:/ /phsxchweb.partners.org/exchweb/bin/ redir.asp?URL=http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/ c g i / e x t e r n a l _ r e f ? a c c e s s _ n u m = 9376843%26link_type=MED
10. McGovern FJ, Wood BJ, Goldberg SN, et al: Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma via image guided needle electrodes. J Urol 161:599-600, 1999. https:// phsxchweb.partners.org/exchweb/bin/ redir.asp?URL=http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/ c g i / e x t e r n a l _ r e f ? a c c e s s _ n u m = 9915457%26link_type=MED
11. Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Wood BJ, et al: Radio-frequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: Early clinical experience. Radiology 217:665-672, 2000.
12. Goldberg SN, Gazelle GS, Compton CC, et al: Treatment of intrahepatic malignancy with radiofrequency ablation: Radiologicpathologic correlation. Cancer 88:2452-2463, 2000.
13. Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, et al: Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma part 1: Indications, results, and role in patient management over a six year period and ablation of 100 tumors. Am J Roentgenol 185:64-71, 2005.
14. Gervais DA, Arellano RS, McGovern FJ, et al: Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma part 2: Lessons learned with ablation of 100 tumors. Am J Roentgenol 185:72-80, 2005.
15. Farrell MA, Charboneau WJ, DiMarco DS: Imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation of solid renal tumors. Am J Roentgenol 180:1509-1513, 2003.
16. Su LM, Jarrett TW, Chan DY, et al: Percutaneous computed tomography-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal masses in high surgical risk patients: Preliminary results. Urology 61(4 suppl 1):26-33, 2003.
17. Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE, Parikh PM, et al: Imaging-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of solid renal masses: Technique and outcomes of 38 treatment sessions in 32 consecutive patients. Am J Roentgenol 180:1503-1508, 2003.
18. Ahrar K, Matin S, Wood CG, et al: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors: Technique, complications, and outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:679-688, 2005.
19. Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, Choyke PL, et al: Percutaneous radio frequency ablation of small renal tumors: Initial results. J Urol 167:10-15, 2002.
20. Zagoria RJ, Hawkins AD, Clark PE, et al: Percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal neoplasms: Factors influencing success. Am J Roentgenol 183:201-207, 2004.
21. Veltri A, De Fazio G, Malfitana B, et al: Percutaneous US-guided RF thermal ablation for malignant renal tumors: Preliminary results in 13 patients. Eur Radiol 14:2303-2310, 2004.
22. Mahnken AH, Rohde D, Brkovic D, et al: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal carcinoma: Preliminary results. Acta Radiol 46:208-214, 2005.
23. Ogan K, Jacomides L, Dolmatch BL, et al: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors: Technique, limitations, and morbidity. Urology 60:954-958, 2002.
24. Roy-Choudhury SH, Cast JEI, Cooksey G, et al: Early experience with percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small solid renal masses. Am J Roentgenol 180:1055-1061, 2003.
25. Lewin JS, Nour SG, Connell CF, et al: Phase II clinical trial of interactive MR imaging- guided interstitial radiofrequency thermal ablation of primary kidney tumors: Initial experience. Radiology 232:835-845, 2004.
26. de Baere T, Kuoch V, Smayra T, et al : Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: Preliminary clinical experience. J Urol 167:1961-1964, 2002.
27. Shingleton WB, Sewell PE: Cryoablation of renal tumors in patients with solitary kidneys. BJU Int 92:237-239, 2003.
28. Kam AW, Littrup, Walther MM, et al: Thermal protection during percutaneous thermal ablation of renal cell carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:753-758, 2004.
29. Farrell MA, Charboneau JW, Callstrom MR, et al: Paranephric water instillation: A technique to prevent bowel injury during percutaneous renal radiofrequency ablation. Am J Roentgenol 181:1315-1317, 2003.
30. Haemmerich D, Lee FT Jr, Schutt DJ, et al: Large-volume radiofrequency ablation of ex vivo bovine liver with multiple cooled cluster electrodes. Radiology 234:563-568, 2005.
31. Tuncali K, vanSonnenberg E, Shankar S, et al : Evaluation of patients referred for percutaneous ablation of renal tumors: Importance of a preprocedural diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol 183:575-582, 2004.