Long-term outcomes of radiofrequency ablation vs. partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

• Published in: Frontiers in surgery Vol. 9; p. 1012897
• Main Authors: Li, Linjin, Zhu, Jianlong, Shao, Huan, Huang, Laijian, Wang, Xiaoting, Bao, Wenshuo, Sheng, Tao, Chen, Dake, He, Yanmei, Song, Baolin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 06.01.2023
• Subjects: partial nephrectomy; radiofrequency ablation; recurrence; renal cancer; Surgery; survival; recurrence; renal cancer; radiofrequency ablation; partial nephrectomy; survival
• ISSN: 2296-875X; 2296-875X
• DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1012897

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is one of the most preferred nephron-sparing treatments for clinical T1 (cT1) renal cancer, while radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is usually used for patients who are poor surgical candidates. The long-term oncologic outcome of RFA vs. PN for cT1 renal cancer remains undetermined. This meta-analysis aims to compare the treatment efficacy and safety of RFA and PN for patients with cT1 renal cancer with long-term follow-up of at least 5 years. This meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA reporting guidelines. Literature studies that had data on the comparison of the efficacy or safety of RFA vs. PN in treating cT1 renal cancer were searched in databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January2000 to 1 May 2022. Only long-term studies with a median or mean follow-up of at least 5 years were included. The following measures of effect were pooled: odds ratio (OR) for recurrence and major complications; hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Additional analyses, including sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and publication bias analysis, were also performed. A total of seven studies with 1,635 patients were finally included. The treatment efficacy of RFA was not different with PN in terms of cancer recurrence (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.45-3.28), PFS (HR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.75-2.11), and CSS (HR = 1.27, 95% CI, 0.41-3.95) as well as major complications (OR = 1.31, 95% CI, 0.55-3.14) (  > 0.05 for all). RFA was a potential significant risk factor for OS (HR = 1.76, 95% CI, 1.32-2.34,  < 0.001). No significant heterogeneity and publication bias were observed. This is the first meta-analysis that focuses on the long-term oncological outcomes of cT1 renal cancer, and the results suggest that RFA has comparable therapeutic efficacy with PN. RFA is a nephron-sparing technique with favorable oncologic efficacy and safety and a good treatment alternative for cT1 renal cancer.