Mini Review Open Access
Volume 1 | Issue 1 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.33696/nephrology.1.001

Percutaneous Ablation of Localized Renal Masses: An Updated Review

  • 1Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
+ Affiliations - Affiliations

*Corresponding Author

Noah S. Schenkman, NSS2F@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu

Received Date: May 21, 2021

Accepted Date: May 31, 2021


Introduction: Thermal ablation (TA) is increasingly used as a treatment for localized renal masses (LRMs, <4 cm) especially in older or comorbid patients. Our previous article by Mershon et al., highlighted the safety and efficacy of TA for treatment of LRMs in select patients. In this presentation, we update that work and discuss new frontiers for TA including patient selection, procedural improvements, and outcomes.

Evidence acquisition: A structured literature review was conducted on PubMed using the keywords: “renal cell carcinoma,” “renal mass,” and “ablation” as well as “complication,” “renal function,” “outcomes”, “cost”, “solitary kidney”, “propensity score” and/or “partial nephrectomy”. Additional papers were cross referenced via citation review.

Evidence synthesis: TA is technically suited for small and less complex tumors in older patients or patients with multiple comorbidities especially chronic kidney disease, solitary kidney or multiple renal masses. Percutaneous technique allows for decreased length of stay and faster recovery time due to the minimally invasive nature of TA. No prospective or randomized trials to compare TA to partial nephrectomy. Comparative studies demonstrate lower complication rates, preservation of renal function, and similar cancer specific survival when compared to partial nephrectomy.

Conclusions: TA is a safe and effective management option for SRM in select patients especially older patients with multiple other co-morbidities.



Carcinoma, Renal cell, Ablation techniques, Radiofrequency ablation, Cryosurgery, Microwaves


LRM: Localized Renal Mass; TA: Thermal Ablation; SEER: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; AUA: American Urologic Association; EAU: European Association of Urology; eGFR: Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; RCC: Renal Cell Carcinoma; CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease; T1a: less than 4 centimeter diameter localized renal mass; T1b: greater than 4 centimeter localized renal mass; RFA: Radiofrequency Ablation; CA: Cryoablation; MWA: Microwave Ablation; RFS: Recurrence Free Survival; CSS: Cancer Specific Survival



With readily available cross-sectional imaging, asymptomatic localized renal masses (LRMs) are often incidentally found. The standard management for LRM has been surgical resection, however, detection of masses that are benign or with low metastatic risk has led to interest in minimally invasive alternatives such as percutaneous thermal ablation (TA) or active surveillance. The increasing adoption of TA heralds more data and novel uses. Our previous article by Mershon et al. highlighted the safety and efficacy of TA for treatment of LRMs in select patients [1]. In this presentation, we update that work and discuss new frontiers for TA including patient selection, procedural improvements, and outcomes.

Patient Selection

Decision-making for treatment of localized LRM must balance several competing priorities. TA has gained popularity due to its favorable oncologic efficacy and complication profile. When comparing papers on PubMed from 2000 to 2007 versus 2008 to 2015 using systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, Pietropaolo et al. reported a change of +109% (P = 0.002) and +78% (P = 0.036) was seen for cryoablation (CA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), respectively [2]. Shi et al. reported an increase in TA from 8.1% in 2004 to 14.9% in 2016 using the retrospective Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare associated databases [3]. The American Urologic Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology Association (EAU) guidelines suggest TA as an alternative for patients with LRMs 3 centimeters or smaller that have a contraindication or unwillingness to undergo surgical resection [4,5]. However, no additional criteria for patient selection have be endorsed by current guidelines.

Many studies document that patients undergoing thermal ablation are significantly older with more comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) than those undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) [3,6-11]. According to Doolittle et al. patients between 70 and 79 were far less likely to undergo PN and far more likely to undergo either ablation or active surveillance as compared to patients under 40 years of age [12]. In addition to the risks associated with biologic age, clinicians must weigh competing causes of mortality versus benefit of treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Age has been shown to be the strongest predictor of mortality, especially non-RCC related mortality [13]. In comorbid patients who present with a LRM, it is often difficult to assess the risk of competing co-morbidities. A state-transition microsimulation by Kang et al. mathematically weighted competing oncologic and non-oncologic risks for mortality. Life expectancy was driven by comorbidities, especially renal function, and associated risks from worsening renal function projected with intervention. Partial nephrectomy was indicated for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 1 and 2, particularly those with less complex masses (RENAL nephrometry score <7). TA extended life expectancy in patients with CKD stage 3A, RENAL nephrometry score less than 7 and Charlson comorbidity index greater than or equal to 1. Patients with more aggressive tumors (RENAL nephrometry score ≥ 7) and CKD stage 3B benefited from watchful waiting or MRI surveillance to detect papillary type 1 RCC (i.e., well-circumscribed cortical masses with T2-weighted hypointensity and low-level enhancement) which would have minimal oncologic benefit with treatment due to low probability of tumor progression [14].

Management of LRMs in patients with anatomically or a functionally solitary kidney poses additional challenges. Partial nephrectomy generally requires renal hilar clamping and ischemia time which can further damage renal function. Consideration should be given to future eGFR decline secondary to concomitant medical comorbidities to preserve renal function and avoid endstage renal disease and dialysis, which is associated with significant morbidity and 43% 5 year survival [15]. Metaanalysis by Yang et al. reported outcomes for 628 patients undergoing TA in a solitary kidney which showed less change in creatinine and eGFR as well as decreased new onset of chronic kidney disease and a trend toward less postoperative dialysis as compared to partial nephrectomy [16]. Similarly, in a review by Favi et al. 89 transplant patients with T1a (less than 4 centimeter diameter LRM) or T1b (greater than 4 centimeter diameter LRM) masses, graft loss was seen in 5 (6%) patients, but graft function remained stable in most patients [17].

Patients with hereditary RCC often present at a younger age with bilateral and/or multifocal tumors with high risk of additional tumor formation in the future. TA is minimally invasive, renal parenchymal sparing, and repeatable – all of which are highly advantageous for patients with hereditary RCC. Matsui et al. treated 6 patients with a total of 29 renal masses (range 1-16) secondary to Birt-Hogg-Dubé disease over 20 TA sessions. At a median of 54 months (range: 6–173 months), all 6 patients were alive without local tumor progression and no distant metastasis. The mean decrease in eGFR during follow-up was 10.7 mL/min [18]. TA has also been described for patients with multiple clear cell RCC associated with Von Hippel Lindau disease [19-23].

The use of TA has been described as a treatment option after a variety of RCC treatments. Brassier et al. reported lower complication rates and similar disease recurrence, local recurrence and distant metastasis when comparing TA (n=42) versus surgical resection (n=39) in 81 patients with isolated local recurrence after partial nephrectomy [24].

Procedural Considerations

Although consensus is still emerging, renal tumor biopsy should be considered to confirm or rule out malignancy even if pathognomonic imaging features are present. One of the major concerns in use of TA is the lack of histopathology. Although biopsy pathology can help counsel patients on prognosis, the timing of biopsy remains controversial. Staged biopsy prior to TA has been shown to result in a decreased rate of TA for benign lesions which could result in cost savings and prevention of unnecessary intervention in benign masses [25,26].

TA technical success is dependent upon mass characteristics and establishing safe percutaneous access with sufficient margins. Uncorrectable coagulopathies remain contraindications to TA. Practical procedure planning algorithms have been proposed, including the ABLATE approach (A, axial tumor diameter; B, bowel proximity; L, location within the kidney; A, adjacency to the ureter; T, touching renal sinus fat; and E, endophytic or exophytic position) [27]. TA is technically best suited for LRM less than 4 centimeters (i.e., T1a tumors); however, a few case series have expanded to larger and more complex tumors [28-34]. Tumor diameter is of great importance for planning the number of probes, especially for larger (T1b) renal masses. Precise probe placement and distribution within the LRM is crucial to obtaining complete ablation and decreasing bleeding risk [35,36]. Care is taken not to traverse the pleura in upper pole tumors in order to prevent pneumothorax. Timing needle puncture with breath holds from anesthesia can be helpful. Oblique needle trajectories through the kidney are favored to prevent damage to the renal collecting system and prevent urinoma. Positioning adjustments (i.e., prone or ipsilateral decubitus position) and hydro-dissection can be used to isolate the kidney from surrounding structures, including bowel or liver. Similarly, pyeloperfusion can be deployed in which a ureteral stent with cold saline irrigation is used to protect the collecting system and ureter in patients undergoing RFA or MWA [27,28]. The method of image guidance ranging from ultrasound, CT or even MRI should be carefully chosen to best visualize the probes, tumor, and surrounding structures.

Various TA techniques have been described for treatment of renal tumors including radiofrequency (RFA), cryoablation (CA), and microwave (MWA). Although MWA has gained increasing acceptance, most of the literature has focused on RFA and CA, and only RFA and CA are mentioned as ablation options in AUA guidelines [4]. MWA systems with higher power can achieve higher temperatures exceeding 100°C and thus are less affected by the “heat-sink” effect created by blood vessels in a vascularized renal target. Furthermore, MWA is also less affected by increased impedance from desiccated tissue and thus able to produce larger ablation volumes in a shorter time. MWA required less sedation than CA and RFA. Despite these theoretical advantages, multiple studies report similar outcomes for varying TA modalities [6,35,37,38].

Immediately following the ablation procedure, contrastenhanced cross-sectional imaging, if permitted by patient’s baseline renal function, allows assessing for complete TA and ruling out complications. In carefully selected patients, contrast used during CT imaging for this evaluation has not been shown to impact the patient’s renal function [39].

Perioperative Outcomes

The minimally invasive approach to TA complements the overall low reported complication rates. We reported minor complication rates (i.e., requiring no intervention or only medical intervention) range from 7 to 24 percent, including most commonly probe site pain, hematoma, hematuria, venous thromboembolism, wound complication, urinoma, acute kidney injury and ileus. Major complications (requiring more than medical intervention) range from 0 to 7 percent and include pneumothorax and thermal damage to surrounding structures [1]. Similar complication rates for CA (8-20%) were reported in a recent systematic review [40]. Given this favorable risk-benefit profile, most patients can be discharged on the day of the TA procedure or the first post-procedure day.

Perioperative outcomes for TA compare favorably to partial nephrectomy. Multiple studies, including metaanalyses, report lower blood loss, length of stay and complications with TA than for PN [6,36,41-46]. Renal, thromboembolic, and cardiovascular events occurred at similar rates in TA and PN [8]. A meta-analysis by Patel et al. reported no differences in renal functional outcomes for TA or PN with both resulting in a decrease in eGFR around 1.0 mL/min per 1.73 mL2 with eGFR remaining stable postoperatively [47]. Regardless of technique (TA vs. PN), complications and local recurrence are associated with dimensions and complexity of the tumor [15,48]. Furthermore, patients at highest risk for complications following PN are ideally defined candidates for TA [8]. Interestingly, Zhou et al. reported no increased risk of disease-free survival or complication rates for overweight or obese patients undergoing TA [49].

Oncologic Outcomes

Follow up with cross-sectional imaging (CT or MRI) is the cornerstone for evaluation of ablation success. In our institution, we use follow up renal protocol enhanced MRI (or CT if MRI contraindicated) at 6 months after ablation then at 12 months or annually based upon AUA guidelines [4]. Residual or recurrent disease is indicated by persistent or newly enhancing or enlarging nodule(s) in the ablation zone.

Five -year survival above 95% has been reported for all TA modalities. Recurrence -free survival (RFS) is inferior when only comparing single TA session to PN. Many studies demonstrated secondary efficacy of TA with repeat ablation bringing RFS up to 97 to 100%, and differences between PN and TA were no longer significant [36]. AUA guidelines specifically note the higher risk of recurrence with stage T1b renal masses treated with TA [4]. High rate of comorbidities in patients undergoing TA can have competing-cause mortality and are often cited as causes for decreased overall survival as compared to cancer specific survival [43,45]. Bhindi et al. reported similar local recurrence, distant metastasis and cancer specific survival (CSS) at a median follow up of 47 months when comparing patients with solitary LRM undergoing CA or PN using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity to receive treatment [15]. Another recent retrospective review of 10,2018 patients with T1aN0M0 RCC during a 9 year follow up period reported similar overall and cancer-specific survival (96%) for patients undergoing TA as well as partial and radical nephrectomy [7]. Further detailed comparisons of TA and PN are detailed in Table 1. To date, there has been no prospective, randomized comparison of ablation and PN. A recent review done by the EAU RCC Guideline Panel found that there was high risk of bias due to the retrospective, observational nature of most studies with poorly matched controls and limited follow up. Further, it is difficult to compare studies with variable oncologic outcomes reported and heterogenous patient populations with some reports including benign tumors in their cohorts. They concluded that “the current data are inadequate to make any strong and clear conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of TA for treating T1N0M0 renal masses compared with PN. Therefore, TA may be cautiously considered an alternative to PN for T1N0M0 renal masses, but patients must be counselled carefully regarding the prevailing uncertainties” [50].

Study Type
Patient population
Survival Reporting
Recurrence- Free Survival (%)
Overall survival (%)
Cancer- Specific Survival (%)
Takaki (2010)
51 RFA  
5 years
0% (Major) 98.0% 75.0% ? 100%
10 PN 0% (Major) 75.0%* 100% 100%
54 RN 7.4% (Major) 95.0% 100% 100%
Olweny (2012)
37 RFA  
5 years
NR 91.7% 97.2% 97.2%
37 PN NR 94.6% 100% 100%
Anglickis (2019)
pT1, >70 yo
15 MWA  
5 years
0% 93.3% 100% 100%
18 PN 0% 100% 100% 100%
Talenfeld (2018)
Retrospective (SEER)  
456 TA  
5 years
6% NR 77% 95%
1748 PN 29% NR 86% 98%
Park (2017) [9]
Retrospective (PSM)  
63 RFA  
2 years
4.7% (Major) 95.2% NR NR
63 PN 4.7% (Major) 100% NR NR
Xing (2018) [7]
Retrospective (SEER, PSM)  
691 TA  
9 years
NR NR 88.6% 96.3%
691 PN NR NR 91.1% 96.4%
Zhou (2018) [55]
Retrospective (SEER, PSM)  
809 TA  
5 years
NR NR 86.3% ? NR but no significant difference
3,783 PN NR NR 91.0%
Yu (2020) [45]
Retrospective (PSM)  
185 MWA  
5 years
2.2% (Major) 82.9% 86.3% NR but no significant difference
1770 PN 4.9% (Major) 91.4% 91.9%
Shi (2020) [3]
Retrospective (SEER, PSM)  
4,656 TA  
10 years
NR NR 56.6% ? 92.4% ?
33,499 PN NR NR 64.2% 96.1%
Thompson (2015)
180 RFA  
3 years
NR 98% 82% NR
187 CA NR 98% 88% NR
1057 PN NR 98% 95% NR
53 CA  
3 years
NR 97% 74% ? NR
326 PN NR 96% 93% NR
Liu (2017) [56]
pT1 ccRCC
93 RFA
10 years
15.1% T1a
30% T1b
120 PN
11.5% T1a
15.2% T1b
pT1 non- ccRCC
22 RFA
10 years
25% T1a
10% T1b
29 PN
25% T1a
15.4% T1b
Andrews (2019)
Retrospective (PSM)
180 RFA  
5 years
NR 94.5% 72% 95.6%
187 CA NR 93.4% 77% 100%
1055 PN NR 97.4% 92% 99.3%
52 CA  
5 years
NR 90% 56%? 91%
324 PN NR 94% 90% 98%
Takaki (2014)
21 RFA  
10 years
8.0% (Major) NR 48% ? 94%
39 RN 5.1% (Major) NR 97% 100%
Chang (2015) [59]
27 RFA  
5 years
11.1% (Major) 81.0% 85.5% 92.6%
29 PN 10.3% (Major) 89.7% 96.6% 96.6%
Rembeyo (2020)
Retrospective (PSM)
55 CA + 11 RFA  
2 years
0% (Major)
36 PN 0% (Major) NR 96.3% 96.3%
Xing (2018) [7]
Retrospective (SEER, PSM)
691 TA  
9 years
NR NR 88.6% 96.3%
691 PN NR NR 91.1% 96.4%
Shapiro (2020)
40 MWA  
5 years
10% (Major) 94.5% NR 100%
74 PN 5.4% (Major) 97.9% NR 97.6%
211 RN 3.3% (Major) 99.2% NR 95.5%

SEER: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database; PSM: Propensity Score Matching; cT1a: clinical T1a (<4 cm LRM); pT1a = patho- logic T1a (<4 cm LRM); cT1b = clinical T1b (>4 cm LRM); yo: years old; PN: Partial Nephrectomy; RN: Radical Nephrectomy; NR: Not Reported; Major: Major complications (Clavian Dindo = 3)
*3 years
? Significant difference in survival when compared to partial nephrectomy

Table 1: Comparison of Complications and Oncologic Outcomes for Studies Comparing LRM Treated with TA vs Surgical Resection.

Future Directions

There has been an increased acceptance of TA, but it is typically reserved for the morbidity-burdened population with LRMs. The question of the effect of ablation on healthrelated quality of life remains unanswered. Some evidence suggests that ablation could be a cost-effective option for many patients [8,41,45,51]. However, a cost comparison including active surveillance and PN arms remains to be done. Additional questions remain in how to best assess competing co-morbidities to direct the patient to the best individualized treatment strategy.



TA is an important addition to the urologist’s established armamentarium of surgical resection for management of renal masses. There are no prospective or randomized studies comparing efficacy of ablation and PN. Patient selection is highly subject to bias as patients that are currently targeted for percutaneous TA are often older and burdened with multiple comorbidities but have smaller and less complex masses as compared to patient selected for PN. When compared to partial nephrectomies, retrospective comparative series report similar oncologic outcomes and often improved complication profiles.

Other specific patient populations well suited for ablation including those with a solitary kidney, CKD, or multiple masses where preservation of renal function is of the utmost priority. Percutaneous image guided TA is an attractive treatment option providing local tumor control, fewer complications, and better preservation of renal function.



1. Mershon JP, Tuong MN, Schenkman NS. Thermal ablation of the small renal mass: a critical analysis of current literature. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Apr;72(2):123-134.

2. Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Aboumarzouk OM, Rai BP, Lockyer CR, Hayes MC, et al. Trends in surgical and ablative treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma: A review of publication trends over 16 years (2000-2015). Arab J Urol. 2019;17(2):120-124.

3. Shi L, He Y, Liu C, Qian X, Wang Z. Local ablation vs partial nephrectomy in T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis. Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(21):7988-8003.

4. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, Bass EB, Cadeddu JA, Chang A, et al. Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):520-529.

5. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Bedke J, et al. EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma. 2020.

6. Talenfeld AD, Gennarelli RL, Elkin EB, Atoria CL, Durack JC, Huang WC, et al. Percutaneous Ablation Versus Partial and Radical Nephrectomy for T1a Renal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Ann InternMed.2018 Jul 17;169(2):69-77.

7. Xing M, Kokabi N, Zhang D, Ludwig JM, Kim HS. Comparative Effectiveness of Thermal Ablation, Surgical Resection, and Active Surveillance for T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked Population Study. Radiology. 2018 Jul;288(1):81-90.

8. Larcher A, Sun M, Dell’Oglio P, Trudeau V, Boehm K, Schiffmann J, et al. Mortality, morbidity and healthcare expenditures after local tumour ablation or partial nephrectomy for T1A kidney cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;43(4):815-822.

9. Park BK, Gong IH, Kang MY, Sung HH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, et al. RFA versus robotic partial nephrectomy for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched comparison of mid-term outcome. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2979-2985.

10. Mason RJ, Atwell TD, Lohse C, Bhindi B, Weisbrod A, Boorjian SA, et al. Renal functional outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous cryoablation or partial nephrectomy for a solitary renal mass. BJU Int. Oct 2017;120(4):544-549.

11. Caputo PA, Zargar H, Ramirez D, Andrade HS, Akca O, Gao T, et al. Cryoablation versus Partial Nephrectomy for Clinical T1b Renal Tumors: A Matched Group Comparative Analysis. Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):111-117.

12. Doolittle J, Piotrowski J, Zuk K, Jacobsohn K, Langenstroer P, See W, et al. Evolving Trends for Selected Treatments of T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma. Urology. 2019 Oct;132:136-142.

13. Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Wong YN, Uzzo RG. Evaluating overall survival and competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma using a comprehensive nomogram. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):311-7.

14. Kang SK, Huang WC, Elkin EB, Pandharipande PV, Braithwaite RS. Personalized Treatment for Small Renal Tumors: Decision Analysis of Competing Causes of Mortality. Radiology. 2019 Mar;290(3):732-743.

15. Bhindi B, Mason RJ, Haddad MM, Boorjian SA, Leibovich BC, Atwell TD, et al. Outcomes After Cryoablation Versus Partial Nephrectomy for Sporadic Renal Tumors in a Solitary Kidney: A Propensity Score Analysis. Eur Urol. 2018 Feb 01;73(2):254-259.

16. Yang Q, Meng F, Li K, Wang T, Nie Q, Che Z, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small Renal Masses in Solitary Kidney: Evidence from Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0131290.

17. Favi E, Raison N, Ambrogi F, Delbue S, Clementi MC, Lamperti L, et al. Systematic review of ablative therapy for the treatment of renal allograft neoplasms. World J Clin Cases. 2019 Sep 6;7(17):2487-2504.

18. Matsui Y, Hiraki T, Gobara H, Iguchi T, Tomita K, Uka M, et al. Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma in patients with Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Nov;100(11):671-677.

19. Park SY, Park BK, Kim CK, Lee HM, Jeon SS, Seo SI, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas in patients with von Hippel Lindau disease previously undergoing a radical nephrectomy or repeated nephron-sparing surgery. Acta Radiol. 2011 Jul 1;52(6):680-5.

20. Park BK, Kim CK, Park SY, Shen SH. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas in patients with von Hippel Lindau disease: indications, techniques, complications, and outcomes. Acta Radiol. 2013 May;54(4):418-27

21. Iwamoto Y, Kanda H, Yamakado K, Soga N, Arima K, Takeda K, et al. Management of renal tumors in Von Hippel-Lindau disease by percutaneous CT fluoroscopic guided radiofrequency ablation: preliminary results. Familial Cancer. 2011 Sep 01;10(3):529-534.

22. Allasia M, Soria F, Battaglia A, Gazzera C, Calandri M, Caprino MP, et al. Radiofrequency Ablation for Renal Cancer in Von Hippel-Lindau Syndrome Patients: A Prospective Cohort Analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Aug 10;

23. Gao Y, Xu M, Xu ZF, Liu DW, Tu XA, Zheng YL, et al. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation treatment and genetic testing for renal cell carcinoma with Von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Xray Sci Technol. 2012;20(1):121-9.

24. Brassier M, Khene ZE, Bernhard JC, Ouzaid I, Nouhaud FX, Olivier J, et al. Percutaneous Ablation Versus Surgical Resection for Local Recurrence Following Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Cancer: A Propensity Score Analysis (REPART Study-UroCCR 71). Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Feb 20;

25. Wells SA, Wong VK, Wittmann TA, Lubner MG, Best SL, Ziemlewicz TJ, et al. Renal mass biopsy and thermal ablation: should biopsy be performed before or during the ablation procedure? Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Jun;42(6):1773-1780.

26. Widdershoven CV, Aarts BM, Zondervan PJ, Henderickx MM, Klompenhouwer EG, van Delden OM, et al. Renal biopsies performed before versus during ablation of T1 renal tumors: implications for prevention of overtreatment and follow-up. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Jan;46(1):373-379.

27. Schmit GD, Kurup AN, Weisbrod AJ, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Wass CT, et al. ABLATE: A Renal Ablation Planning Algorithm. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014 Apr 01;202(4):894-903.

28. Atwell TD, Vlaminck JJ, Boorjian SA, Kurup AN, Callstrom MR, Weisbrod AJ, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of stage T1b renal cell carcinoma: technique considerations, safety, and local tumor control. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Jun;26(6):792-9.

29. Chang X, Zhang F, Liu T, Ji C, Zhao X, Yang R, et al. Radio Frequency Ablation versus Partial Nephrectomy for Clinical T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma: Long-Term Clinical and Oncologic Outcomes. Journal of Urology.2015;193(2):430-435.

30. Shapiro DD, Wells SA, Best SL, Hedican SP, Ziemlewicz TJ, Lubner MG, et al. Comparing Outcomes for Patients with Clinical T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Either Percutaneous Microwave Ablation or Surgery. Urology. 2020 Jan;135:88-94.

31. Wells SA, Wheeler KM, Mithqal A, Patel MS, Brace CL, Schenkman NS. Percutaneous microwave ablation of T1a and T1b renal cell carcinoma: short-term efficacy and complications with emphasis on tumor complexity and single session treatment. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Jun;41(6):1203-11.

32. Gunn AJ, Joe WB, Salei A, El Khudari H, Mahmoud KH, Bready E, et al. Percutaneous Cryoablation of Stage T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma: Safety, Technical Results, and Clinical Outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019 Jul;42(7):970-978.

33. Psutka SP, Feldman AS, McDougal WS, McGovern FJ, Mueller P, Gervais DA. Long-term oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63(3):486-92.

34. Rembeyo G, Correas JM, Jantzen R, Audenet F, Dariane C, Delavaud C, et al. Percutaneous Ablation Versus Robotic Partial Nephrectomy in the Treatment of cT1b Renal Tumors: Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of a Propensity Score-weighted Analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Apr;18(2):138-147.

35. Katsanos K, Mailli L, Krokidis M, McGrath A, Sabharwal T, Adam A. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Thermal Ablation Versus Surgical Nephrectomy for Small Renal Tumours. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. 2014 Apr 01;37(2):427-437.

36. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Patel HD, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, et al. Management of Renal Masses and Localized Renal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):989-99.

37. Krokidis ME, Orsi F, Katsanos K, Helmberger T, Adam A. CIRSE Guidelines on Percutaneous Ablation of Small Renal Cell Carcinoma. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. 2017 Feb 01;40(2):177-191

38. Zhou W, Herwald SE, McCarthy C, Uppot RN, Arellano RS. Radiofrequency Ablation, Cryoablation, and Microwave Ablation for T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Evaluation of Therapeutic and Renal Function Outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019 Jul;30(7):1035- 1042.

39. Curci NE, Triche BL, Abel EJ, Bhutani G, Maciolek KA, Dreyfuss LD, et al. Effect of iodinated contrast material on post-operative eGFR when administered during renal mass ablation. Eur Radiol. 25 Jan 2021;

40. Zargar H, Atwell TD, Cadeddu JA, Jean J, Janetschek G, Kaouk JH, et al. Cryoablation for Small Renal Masses: Selection Criteria, Complications, and Functional and Oncologic Results. Eur Urol.2016 Jan;69(1):116-28.

41. Wang Y, Chen YW, Leow JJ, Levy AC, Chang SL, Gelpi FH. Cost-effectiveness of Management Options for Small Renal Mass: A Systematic Review. Am J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct;39(5):484-90.

42. Xiaobing W, Wentao G, Guangxiang L, Fan Z, Weidong G, Hongqian G, et al. Comparison of radiofrequency ablation and partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney. BMC Urol. 2017 Sep 6;17(1):79.

43. Rivero JR, De La Cerda J, 3rd, Wang H, et al. Partial Nephrectomy versus Thermal Ablation for Clinical Stage T1 Renal Masses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More than 3,900 Patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018 Jan;29(1):18-29.

44. Thompson RH, Atwell T, Schmit G, Lohse CM, Kurup AN, Weisbrod A , et al. Comparison of partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal masses. Eur Urol. 2015 Feb;67(2):252-9.

45. Yu J, Zhang X, Liu H, Zhang R, Yu X, Cheng Z, et al. Percutaneous Microwave Ablation versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for cT1a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study of 1955 Patients. Radiology. 2020 Mar;294(3):698-706.

46. Guan W, Bai J, Liu J, Wang S, Zhuang Q, Ye Z et al. Microwave ablation versus partial nephrectomy for small renal tumors: intermediate-term results. J Surg Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;106(3):316-21.

47. Patel HD, Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Sharma R, Iyoha E, Allaf ME, et al. Renal Functional Outcomes after Surgery, Ablation, and Active Surveillance of Localized Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Jul 7;12(7):1057-1069.

48. Camacho JC, Kokabi N, Xing M, Master VA, Pattaras JG, Mittal PK, et al. R.E.N.A.L. (Radius, exophytic/ endophytic, nearness to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, and location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score predicts early tumor recurrence and complications after percutaneous ablative therapies for renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 May;26(5):686-93.

49. Zhou W, Herwald SE, Uppot RN, Arellano RS. Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Complications and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Thermal Ablation for Renal Cell Carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2021 Jan;32(1):33-38.

50. Abu-Ghanem Y, Fernández-Pello S, Bex A, Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Dabestani S, et al. Limitations of Available Studies Prevent Reliable Comparison Between Tumour Ablation and Partial Nephrectomy for Patients with Localised Renal Masses: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Renal Cell Cancer Guideline Panel. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):433-452.

51. Chehab M, Friedlander JA, Handel J, Vartanian S, Krishnan A, Wong CY, et al. Percutaneous Cryoablation vs Partial Nephrectomy: Cost Comparison of T1a Tumors. J Endourol. 2016. Feb;30(2):170-6.

52. Takaki H, Yamakado K, Soga N, Arima K, Nakatsuka A, Kashima M, et al. Midterm results of radiofrequency ablation versus nephrectomy for T1a renal cell carcinoma. Japanese journal of radiology. 2010;28(6):460-468.

53. Olweny EO, Park SK, Tan YK, Best SL, Trimmer C, Cadeddu JA. Radiofrequency ablation versus partial nephrectomy in patients with solitary clinical T1a renal cell carcinoma: comparable oncologic outcomes at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1156-61.

54. Anglickis M, Anglickiene G, Andreikaite G, Skrebunas A. Microwave Thermal Ablation versus Open Partial Nephrectomy for the Treatment of Small Renal Tumors in Patients Over 70 Years Old. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Oct 1;55(10).

55. Zhou M, Mills A, Noda C, Ramaswamy R, Akinwande O. SEER study of ablation versus partial nephrectomy in cT1A renal cell carcinoma. Future Oncol. Jul 2018;14(17):1711-1719.

56. Liu N, Huang D, Cheng X, Chong Y, Wang W, Gan W, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for renal cell carcinoma vs. partial nephrectomy: Comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes in both clear cell and nonclear cell of the most common subtype. Urol Oncol. 2017 Aug;35(8):530.e1-530.e6.

57. Andrews JR, Atwell T, Schmit G, Lohse CM, Kurup AN, Weisbrod A, et al. Oncologic Outcomes Following Partial Nephrectomy and Percutaneous Ablation for cT1 Renal Masses. Eur Urol. 2019 Aug;76(2):244-251.

58. Takaki H, Soga N, Kanda H, Nakatsuka A, Uraki J, Fujimori M, et al. Radiofrequency ablation versus radical nephrectomy: clinical outcomes for stage T1b renal cell carcinoma. Radiology. 2014 Jan;270(1):292-9.

59. Chang X, Zhang F, Liu T, Ji C, Zhao X, Yang R, et al. Radio frequency ablation versus partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b renal cell carcinoma: long-term clinical and oncologic outcomes. J Urol. 2015 Feb;193(2):430-5.

Author Information X