Retrospective single centre study of microwave ablation in the treatment of cT1 renal cell carcinomas

Czech version

Authors: Jan Hnátek ^1,2; Jakub Horňák ^1,3; Martin Mašek ⁴; Jan Hrbáček ^1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Urologické oddělení, FN Bulovka, Praha ¹; 3. LF UK, Praha ²; 1. LF UK, Praha ³; Radiodiagnostické oddělení, FN Bulovka, Praha ⁴
Published in: Ces Urol 2026; 30(1): 19-23
Category: Original article
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccu2026002

Overview

Major statement: Microwave ablation is a miniinvasive method of cT1 renal cell carcinomas treatment. The aim of the study is to present the oncological results and the occurrence of postoperative complications of this method at our institution.

Aim: Microwave ablation is an alternative to partial nephrectomy in the treatment of cT1 renal carcinomas. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the oncological results and postoperative complications of this method. Patient population: The retrospective, single institution study included 63 patients who underwent a total of 78 microwave ablations at our institution, between 2012 and 2023. Results: The study demonstrated a close relationship between oncological results and tumor size. In patients with tumors < 3 cm, 86% of patients remained recurrence-free during the follow-up, while in the group with tumors over 3 cm in the largest dimension, 68% of patients did not have a recurrence. Postoperative complications occurred in 18% of patients in general and 6% were serious (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3). Conclusion: Microwave ablation in the treatment of localized renal tumors (cT1) represents a modern and safe miniinvasive technique. The therapeutic outcome is closely dependent on the tumor size. For tumors up to 3 cm, the method achieves comparable oncological results with a similar frequency of postoperative complications as partial nephrectomy.

Keywords:

microwave ablation – renal carcinoma – tumor size – postoperative complications – miniinvasive methods

Sources

1. Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR. Národní zdravotnický informační systém (NZIS), národní onkologický registr (NOR). [online].
Dostupné z: https://www.uzis.cz.

2. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Congress, Madrid 2025. [online]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urological-infections/chapter/introduction.

3. Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Gao T et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older.
Cancer 2010; 116(13): 3119–3126. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25184.

4. Sun M, Becker A, Tian Z et al. Management of localized kidney cancer: calculating cancer-specific mortality and competing risks of death for surgery and nonsurgical management. Eur Urol 2014; 65(1): 235–241. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.034.

5. Korčáková E, Mírka H, Štajdlová K et al. Mikrovlnná ablace a její role v léčbě malých renálních nádorů. Ces Urol 2023; 27(4): 213–221. doi: 10.48095/cccu2023027.

6. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al. The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250(2):
187–196. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.

7. Yu J, Zhang X, Liu H et al. Percutaneous microwave ablation versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for ct1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched cohort study of 1955 patients. Radiology 2020; 294(3): 698–706. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020190919.

8. Yanagisawa T, Mori K, Kawada T et al. Differential efficacy of ablation therapy versus partial nephrectomy between clinical t1a and t1b renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol 2022; 40(7): 315–330. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.04.002.

9. Aarts BM, Gomez FM, Lopez-Yurda M et al. Safety and efficacy of RFA versus MWA for t1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis. Eur Radiol 2023; 33(2): 1040–1049. doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-09110-w.

10. Nisen H, Järvinen P, Kilpeläinen T et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy in patients with t1 renal tumor: comparative perioperative, functional and oncological outcome. Scand J Urol 2015; 49(6): 446–452. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2015.1076030.

11. Arora S, Keeley J, Pucheril D et al. What is the hospital volume threshold to optimize inpatient complication rate after partial nephrectomy? Urol Oncol 2018; 36(7): 339.e17–339.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.04.009.

12. Chan VW, Abul A, Osman FH et al. Ablative therapies versus partial nephrectomy for small renal masses –⁠ a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2022; 97 : 106194. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106194.

13. Shapiro DD, Wells SA, Best SL et al. Comparing outcomes for patients with clinical T1b renal cell carcinoma treated with either percutaneous microwave ablation or surgery. Urology 2020; 135 : 88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.024.