[Treatment of renal tumors with radiofrequency: preliminary results].

Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2002 · Benefit · Very low evidence

← Research stream
BenefitVery low evidencePaper 3849

Ten renal tumours in six patients were treated with radiofrequency; nine tumours were devascularized after a single session and one required a second session 4 months later to achieve complete devascularization. The intraoperative complication rate was 16%, m…

Study snapshot

PublicationProgres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2002
Study typeother
Reported directionBenefit
Evidence ratingVery low

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the feasibility and the innocuity of the treatment by radiofrequency of small renal tumours. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From June 2000 to September 2001, 10 renal tumours in 6 patients were treated by radiofrequency. The mean age of the patients was 57 years. The mean tumour diameter was 20 mm. Indications for partial surgery were 3 solitary kidneys, one patient with chronic renal failure, one patient with Von Hippel Lindau disease and one patient in whom several angiomyolipomas were discovered in the right kidney. 4 patients were treated via a lumbar incision and 2 were treated percutaneously (one with ultrasound guidance and the other with computed tomography guidance). Patients were reviewed by imaging (CT and/or MRI) with injection of contrast agent to demonstrate complete devascularization of the tumour. RESULTS: Treatment lasted an average of 180 minutes. The intraoperative complication rate was 16%. The mean hospital stay was 9 days (4 days for the percutaneous route). Nine tumours (5 patients) were devascularized after a single session. One patient (treated via the percutaneous route under ultrasound guidance) showed persistence of tumour tissue (identified by CT). A second session, performed 4 months later, allowed complete devascularization of the tumour. The mean follow-up is 13 months. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety in terms of renal function of radiofrequency treatment of small renal tumours. However further studies are necessary to precisely define the radiological criteria of tumour necrosis and to evaluate the long-term results of this method (outcome of necrotic tumour tissue, metastatic risk, cancer recurrence along the needle track in the case of a percutaneous approach). This treatment must be reserved for selected patients.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother
Effect directionbenefit
PopulationPatients with small renal tumours
Sample size6
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthVery lowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Ten renal tumours in six patients were treated with radiofrequency; nine tumours were devascularized after a single session and one required a second session 4 months later to achieve complete devascularization. The intraoperative complication rate was 16%, mean hospital stay was 9 days (4 days for percutaneous route), and mean follow-up was 13 months. Authors conclude the method is feasible and safe in terms of renal function, while noting need for further studies on radiological criteria and long-term outcomes.

Outcomes measured

  • Feasibility of radiofrequency treatment
  • Safety/innocuity (including renal function)
  • Tumour devascularization/necrosis on imaging (CT/MRI with contrast)
  • Intraoperative complications
  • Hospital stay length
  • Need for repeat treatment session
  • Follow-up duration

Limitations

  • Small sample size (6 patients, 10 tumours)
  • Preliminary results with short mean follow-up (13 months)
  • No long-term outcomes reported (e.g., metastatic risk, recurrence, needle-track seeding)
  • Radiological criteria for tumour necrosis not precisely defined
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "radiofrequency ablation (medical treatment)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Patients with small renal tumours",
  "sample_size": 6,
  "outcomes": [
    "Feasibility of radiofrequency treatment",
    "Safety/innocuity (including renal function)",
    "Tumour devascularization/necrosis on imaging (CT/MRI with contrast)",
    "Intraoperative complications",
    "Hospital stay length",
    "Need for repeat treatment session",
    "Follow-up duration"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Ten renal tumours in six patients were treated with radiofrequency; nine tumours were devascularized after a single session and one required a second session 4 months later to achieve complete devascularization. The intraoperative complication rate was 16%, mean hospital stay was 9 days (4 days for percutaneous route), and mean follow-up was 13 months. Authors conclude the method is feasible and safe in terms of renal function, while noting need for further studies on radiological criteria and long-term outcomes.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (6 patients, 10 tumours)",
    "Preliminary results with short mean follow-up (13 months)",
    "No long-term outcomes reported (e.g., metastatic risk, recurrence, needle-track seeding)",
    "Radiological criteria for tumour necrosis not precisely defined"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "very_low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "renal tumour",
    "kidney neoplasm",
    "radiofrequency ablation",
    "percutaneous approach",
    "CT",
    "MRI",
    "devascularization",
    "complications",
    "renal function"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 12545624

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library