Microwave vs radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses: perioperative and oncological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive comparison of microwave ablation (MWA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) outcomes in the treatment of small renal masses (SRMs), specifically: TRIFECTA ([i] complete ablation, [ii] absence of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III complications, and [iii] absence of ≥30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate) achievement, operative time (OT), and local recurrence rate (LRR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 531 patients with SRMs (clinical T1a-b) treated with MWA or RFA at a single centre (2008-2022). First, multivariable logistic regression models were used for testing TRIFECTA achievement. Second, multivariable Poisson regression models were used to evaluate variables associated with longer OT. Finally, Kaplan-Meier plots depicted LRR over time. All analyses were repeated after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Of 531 patients with SRMs, 373/531 (70.2%) underwent MWA and 158/531 (29.8%) RFA. MWA demonstrated superior TRIFECTA achievement (314/373 [84.2%]) compared to RFA (114/158 [72.2%], P = 0.001). These differences were driven by higher rates of complete ablation in MWA- vs RFA-treated patients (348/373 [93.3%] vs 137/158 [86.7%], P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression models, MWA was associated with higher TRIFECTA achievement, compared to RFA, before (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, P = 0.008) and after PSM (OR 1.99, P = 0.023). Finally, the median OT was shorter for MWA vs RFA (105 vs 115 min; P = 0.002). At Poisson regression analyses, MWA predicted shorter OT before (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.86, P < 0.001) and after PSM (IRR 0.85, P < 0.001). Local recurrence occurred in 17/373 (4.6%) MWA-treated patients and 21/158 (13.3%) RFA-treated patients (P = 0.29) after a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 24 (8-46) months. There were no differences in the LRR in Kaplan-Meier plots before (P = 0.29) and after PSM (P = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Microwave ablation provides higher TRIFECTA achievement, and shorter OT than RFA. No significant differences were found regarding the LRR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".