No abstract

Percutaneous ablation of small-size non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has demonstrated feasibility and safety in nonsurgical candidates. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the most commonly used technique, has an 80-90% reported rate of complete ablation, with the best results obtained in tumors less than 2-3cm in diameter. The highest one-, three-, and five-year overall survival rates reported in NSCLC following RFA are 97.7%, 72.9%, and 55.7% respectively. Tumor size, tumor stage, and underlying comorbidities are the main predictors of survival. Other ablation techniques such as microwave or cryoablation may help overcome the limitations of RFA in the future, particularly for large tumors or those close to large vessels. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has its own complications and carries the risk of fiducial placement requiring multiple lung punctures. SABR has also demonstrated significant efficacy in treating small-size lung tumors and should be compared to percutaneous ablation.

PIGSF is feasible for a wide range of oncologic patients, offering good short-term efficacy, acceptable complication rates, and rapid recovery. Unfavourable local evolution at imaging may be relatively frequent, and requires close clinico-radiological surveillance.

This study demonstrates, for the first time, that TA enables a CFS of 12.2 months that extended to 20.9 months in patients who presented with lung-only metastases. TA is a viable option for a pause in the therapy of mCRCs.

BackgroundTo determine safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for local treatment of lung metastases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), sequenced or combined with systemic treatments.MethodsRetrospectively, we studied 53 patients treated by RFA for a maximum of six lung metastases of RCC. The endpoints were local efficacy, overall (OS), disease-free (DFS), pulmonary progression-free (PPFS) and systemic treatment-free (STFS) survivals, complications graded by the CTCAE classification and factors associated with survivals. Potential factors analysed were: clinical and pathological data, tumoral staging of TNM classification, primary tumor histology, Fuhrman’s grade, age, number and size of lung metastases and extra-pulmonary metastases pre-RFA.ResultsOne hundred metastases were treated by RFA. Median follow-up time was 61 months (interquartile range 90–34). Five-year OS was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): 44–75). Median DFS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 6–16). PPFS at 1 and 3 years was 58.9% (95%CI: 44.1–70.9) and 35.2% (95%CI: 21.6–49.1), respectively. We observed 3% major complications (grade 3 and 4 of CTCAE classification). Local efficacy was 91%. Median STFS was 28.3 months. Thirteen patients (25%) with lung recurrence could be treated by another RFA. T3/T4 tumors had significantly worse OS, PPFS and STFS. Having two or more lung metastases increased the risk of pulmonary progression more than threefold.ConclusionIntegrated to systemic treatment strategy, RFA is safe and effective for the treatment strategy of lung metastasis from RCC with good OS and long systemic treatment-free survival. RFA offers the possibility of repeat procedures, with low morbidity.