ABLATE: a score to predict complications and recurrence rate in percutaneous treatments of renal lesions
- 12 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Medical Oncology
- Vol. 37 (4), 1-7
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-020-01351-3
Abstract
RENAL score has been validated on predicting adverse events and relapses in percutaneous treatments of renal lesions. To better fit interventional issues a modified score (mRENAL) has been introduced, but the only difference from the RENAL score is on the dimensional parameter. However, it remains of surgical derivation while a specific interventional score is missing. This study aims to obtain a specific score (ABLATE) to better quantify the risk of complications and relapses in percutaneous kidney ablation procedures compared to the existing surgical scores. Taking inspiration from previous papers, a score was built to quantify the real difficulties faced in percutaneous treatment of renal lesions. The ABLATE score was used on 71 cryoablations to evaluate its predictivity of complications and relapses. Logistic regression was used to predict complication incidence; Cox-regression was used for relapses; ROC analysis was used to evaluate the accuracy of the different scores. Between January 2014 and November 2019, 71 lesions in 68 patients were treated. Overall, malignant histology was found in 62 lesions (87.3%). Mean and median RENAL, mRENAL, and ABLATE scores were 7.04 and 7, 7.19 and 7, and 5.11 and 4, respectively. Out of 71 treatments, we experienced 3 bleeding with anemia (4.2%), only 2 of which needed further treatment (2.82%). The mean and median RENAL, mRENAL, and ABLATE scores in those with complications were 7.66 and 7.01 (p = 0.69), 8.0 and 7.1 (p = 0.54), and 6.6 and 5.0 (p = 0.38), respectively. Out of 62 malignant lesions, we experienced 2 persistent and 6 recurrent lesions (3.2% and 8.4%, respectively). At Cox-regression analyses, mABLATE score outperformed both RENAL and mRENAL scores in predicting recurrences (HR 1.48; p < 0.001 vs. 1.41; p = 0.1 vs. 1.38: p = 0.07, respectively). The ABLATE score showed to be a better predictor of relapses than RENAL and mRENAL. The small number of complications conditioned a lack of statistic power on complications for all the scores. At the moment to quantify the risks in percutaneous kidney ablation procedures, surgical scores are used. A specific score better performs this task.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Analysis of the RENAL and mRENAL Scores and the Relative Importance of Their Components in the Prediction of Complications and Local Progression after Percutaneous Renal CryoablationJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2017
- Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Partial Nephrectomy in Treating Small Renal TumorsMedicine, 2015
- The Performance of a Modified RENAL Nephrometry Score in Predicting Renal Mass Radiofrequency Ablation SuccessUrology, 2015
- ABLATE: A Renal Ablation Planning AlgorithmAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2014
- RENAL Nephrometry Score Is Associated With Complications After Renal Cryoablation: A Multicenter AnalysisUrology, 2013
- Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses: Washington University experience of treating 129 tumoursBJU International, 2012
- 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-UpEuropean Urology, 2012
- Population‐based comparative effectiveness of nephron‐sparing surgery vs ablation for small renal massesBJU International, 2012
- Percutaneous Cryoablation of Renal Masses: Impact of Patient Selection and Treatment Parameters on OutcomesUrology, 2011
- The R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score: A Comprehensive Standardized System for Quantitating Renal Tumor Size, Location and DepthJournal of Urology, 2009