| Coverage Policy Manual | |
| Policy #: | 2004007 |
| Category: | Surgery |
| Initiated: | January 2004 |
| Last Review: | July 2023 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Radiofrequency Ablation, Renal Tumors | |
|
|
|
| Description: |
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is used to treat inoperable tumors or to treat patients ineligible for surgery due to age, presence of comorbidities, or poor general health. Goal(s) of RFA may include:
The procedure kills cells (cancerous and normal) by applying a heat-generating rapidly alternating current through probes inserted into the tumor. The effective volume of RFA depends on the frequency and duration of applied current, local tissue characteristics, and probe configuration (e.g., single versus multiple tips). RFA can be performed as an open surgical procedure, laparoscopic ally, or percutaneously with ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) guidance.
Potential complications associated with RFA include those caused by heat damage to normal tissue adjacent to the tumor (e.g., intestinal damage during RFA of kidney), structural damage along the probe track (e.g., pneumothorax as a consequence of procedures on the lung), or secondary tumors if cells seed during probe removal.
RFA was developed initially to treat inoperable tumors of the liver. Recently, reports have been published on use of RFA to treat renal cell carcinomas, breast cancer, pulmonary (primary lung cancers or metastatic tumors), bone, and other tumors. For some of these, RFA is being investigated as an alternative to surgery for operable tumors. Well-established local or systemic treatment alternatives are available for each of these malignancies. The hypothesized advantages of RFA for these cancers include improved local control and those common to any minimally invasive procedure (preserving normal organ tissue, decreasing morbidity, decreasing length of hospitalization, etc).
Localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is treated by radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery. Prognosis drops precipitously if the tumor extends outside the kidney capsule, since chemotherapy is relatively ineffective against metastatic RCC.
CPT 50542 may be used to report laparoscopic cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors. Cryoablation of renal tumors is addressed in policy # 2000041.
RELATED POLICIES:
2012062 - Radiofrequency Ablation of Primary or Metastic Liver Tumors
2000041 - Cryosurgical Ablation of Renal Tumors
|
|
|
|
|
Policy/ Coverage: |
Effective January 2022
Biopsy of lesion/s must be obtained and diagnosis of malignancy confirmed to guide surveillance, cryosurgery, and radiofrequency ablation strategies unless clear contraindication to biopsy or the size of the lesion precludes biopsy.
Meets Primary Coverage Criteria Or Is Covered For Contracts Without Primary Coverage Criteria
Radiofrequency ablation in patients with stage I (T1a) renal cell carcinoma or suspected neoplastic renal tumor (biopsy contraindicated or unsuccessful) meets primary coverage criteria for effectiveness in improving health outcomes when:
Active surveillance in patients with stage I (T1a) renal cell carcinoma meets member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness in improving health outcomes..
Does Not Meet Primary Coverage Criteria Or Is Investigational For Contracts Without Primary Coverage Criteria
The use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness.
For contracts without primary coverage criteria, the use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above is considered investigational and is not covered. Investigational services are an exclusion in the member certificate of coverage
Effective March 2019 through December 2021
Biopsy of lesion/s must be obtained and diagnosis of malignancy confirmed to guide surveillance, cryosurgery, and radiofrequency ablation strategies unless clear contraindication to biopsy or the size of the lesion precludes biopsy.
Meets Primary Coverage Criteria Or Is Covered For Contracts Without Primary Coverage Criteria
Radiofrequency ablation of neoplastic renal tumors in patients with stage I (T1a) renal cell carcinoma who are unable to tolerate nephron-sparing surgery or nephrectomy meets primary coverage criteria for effectiveness in improving health outcomes when:
Active surveillance in patients with stage I (T1a) renal cell carcinoma meets primary coverage criteria for effectiveness.
Does Not Meet Primary Coverage Criteria Or Is Investigational For Contracts Without Primary Coverage Criteria
The use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness.
For contracts without primary coverage criteria, the use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above is considered investigational and is not covered. Investigational services are an exclusion in the member certificate of coverage.
EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO MARCH 2019
Radiofrequency ablation of neoplastic renal tumors in patients who are unable to tolerate nephron-sparing surgery or nephrectomy meets primary coverage criteria for effectiveness in improving health outcomes when:
The use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness.
For contracts without primary coverage criteria, the use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above is considered investigational and is not covered. Investigational services are an exclusion in the member certificate of coverage.
Effective, December 2005 through October 2010
Radiofrequency ablation of neoplastic renal tumors in patients who are unable to tolerate nephron-sparing surgery or nephrectomy meets primary coverage criteria for effectiveness in improving health outcomes when:
The use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above does not meet member benefit certificate primary coverage criteria that there be scientific evidence of effectiveness.
For contracts without primary coverage criteria, the use of radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors in any circumstance other than that described above is considered investigational and is not covered. Investigational services are an exclusion in the member certificate of coverage.
Effective, January 2004
Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma is considered investigational and is not covered.
|
|
|
|
| Rationale: |
This section summarizes the evidence for RFA for renal tumors with evidence available from at least 1 case series of 10 or more patients. Outcome of 187 RFA procedures in 149 patients were described in 6 uncontrolled studies. The characteristics of the patients and RFA procedures varied widely within and across the 6 studies in terms of tumor type (e.g., exophytic, parenchymal, central, with or without history of von Hipple-Lindau disease), tumor size (from <1 cm to >5 cm), length of follow-up (from <1 month to >36 months), imaging modality used for guidance, and reason for using RFA. Overall, 88% of procedures were considered successful shortly after 1 or 2 ablations (i.e., no signs of residual tumor by histologic analysis after excision or by post-RFA radiologic imaging). Significant but nonfatal complications were reported in 8%–10% of patients in 2 studies, including perinephric hematomas, hemorrhage, and ureteral strictures. Data were unavailable or lacked appropriate statistical analyses concerning duration of survival or quality of life. Thus, available evidence did not permit conclusions on net health outcomes of RFA for renal cancers.
In reporting the results of 100 tumor ablations in 85 patients Gervais et al. used multivariate analysis to assess tumor size and location as independent predictors of results of radiofrequency ablation. Ablations was considered successful if it resulted in complete necrosis. They concluded RFA of renal tumors is most effective for small tumors, 3 cm or less, though complete ablation in larger tumors is possible with multiple ablation sessions. Tumors in noncentral locations were more often successfully ablated.
2008–2009 Update
Stern and colleagues retrospectively compared patients with stage T1a renal tumors, confirmed by pathology to be renal cell carcinoma, treated with either partial nephrectomy (n=34) or RFA (n=34) (Stern, 2007). The mean follow-up for the partial nephrectomy group was 47 months and for the RFA group 30 months. Three-year recurrence-free survival rate was 95.2% for partial nephrectomy and 91.4% for RFA. There were no disease-specific deaths in either group. In this small study, intermediate outcomes for patients with T1a renal cell carcinomas were similar whether treated with partial nephrectomy or RFA.
A review article summarizes the literature from the last 5 years, which includes 713 patients who underwent RFA of 866 renal tumors with an average follow-up of 12.6 months (Abdellaoui , 2008). The average tumor-free survival rate was 85.4%. The author notes that across different study reports there are significant variations in the practice of RFA for kidney tumors, including the types of devices used, imaging modality and performance experience, making it difficult to compare results across studies. Additionally, the article points out that the longest average follow-up of published studies of RFA and kidney tumors is 28 months, and that long-term follow-up data are necessary to validate the use of this technique.
Kunkle and Uzzo conducted a comparative meta-analysis evaluating cryoablation and RFA as primary treatment for small renal masses (Kunklo, 2008). Forty-seven case series representing 1375 renal tumors were analyzed. Of 600 lesions treated with cryoablation, 494 were biopsied before treatment vs 482 of 775 treated with RFA. The incidence of RCC with known pathology was 71.7% in the cryoablation group and 90% in the RFA group. The mean duration of follow-up after RFA was 15.8 months. Local tumor progression was reported in 31 of 600 lesions after cryoablation and in 100 of 775 lesions after RFA, a difference that was significant. Progression to metastatic disease was described in 6 of 600 lesions after cryoablation vs 19 of 775 after RFA. The authors caution that minimally invasive ablation generally has been performed selectively on older patients with smaller tumors possibly resulting in selection bias, series of ablated lesions tend to have shorter post-treatment follow-up compared with tumors managed by surgical excision or active surveillance, and treatment efficacy may be overestimated in series that include tumors with unknown pathology.
Updated NCCN guidelines have added the statement that ”emerging energy ablative techniques (e.g., cryosurgery or radiofrequency ablation) are currently considered an option by some experts for selected small tumors although a rigorous comparison with surgical resection (i.e., total or partial nephrectomy by open or laparoscopic techniques) has not been done.”
In summary, data from these most recent publications and the updated NCCN guidelines supports the current coverage statement and does not provide any evidence to prompt a change in coverage.
2010 Update
A search of the MEDLINE database through October 2010 identified no published literature that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
One Phase II/III trial is identified as ongoing comparing surgery and RFA for the treatment of renal tumors (NCT00221728). The study design is open label and randomized with expected enrollment of 180 patients from 9 centers. Patients are eligible if they have a kidney tumor smaller than 4 cm, confined to the kidney (T1a). Principal outcome is 5-year efficacy measured as no residual tumor and no recurrence at the site of treatment. The estimated study completion date is April 2011.
2012 Update
A search of the MEDLINE database through September 2012 identified no published literature that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
Salas and colleagues (2010) reviewed 17 studies identified from literature published between 2003 and 2009. The authors found RFA has proven to demonstrate oncologic outcomes that are almost equivalent to surgical resection when treating renal tumors with a mean size less than 4.0 cm. Renal function also declines minimally and is significantly lower than surgical resection. Van Poppel and colleagures (2011) also conducted a review of the literature published between 2004 and May 2011. In this review, the authors concluded RFA is a reasonable treatment option for most low-grade renal tumors less than 4 cm in patients who are not candidates for surgical resection or active surveillance. The authors noted the need for long-term prospective studies to compare ablative techniques for renal ablation, such as RFA versus cryoablation.
Summary
Based on the scientific data (large numbers of patients treated with follow-up) and the clinical input received, radiofrequency ablation of small (i.e., 4 cm or less) renal cancers may be considered medically necessary in those patients who are not surgical candidates due to comorbid conditions or who have baseline renal insufficiency such that standard surgical procedures would impair their kidney function.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines
Updated NCCN guidelines (v2.2011) indicate RFA is a thermal ablation option for the treatment of kidney cancer in select patients such as elderly patients and others with competing health risks.
There are six clinical trials listed on the www.clinicaltrials.gov site for radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors. The status for the studies includes two that have been completed, but no results have been published, one is still recruiting and two that have not yet started recruiting. The others are listed as terminated or unknown.
The completed studies are:
NCT00221728 was terminated due to lack of patients.
2013 Update
A literature search of PubMed and NCI clinical trials database was conducted through September 2013. There was no new literature identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement. The following is a summary of the key identified literature.
In 2012, El Dib and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis evaluating RFA and cryoablation for small renal masses Eel Dib, 2012). Included in the review were 11 RFA case series (totaling 426 patients) and 20 cryoablation case series (totaling 457 patients) published through January 2011. Mean tumor size was 2.7 cm (range from 2 to 4.3 cm) in the RFA group and 2.5 cm (range from 2 to 4.2 cm) in the cryoablation group. Mean follow-up times for the RFA and cryoablation groups were 18.1 and 17.9 months, respectively. Clinical efficacy, defined as cancer-specific survival rate, radiographic success, no evidence of local tumor progression, or distant metastases, was not significantly different between groups. The pooled proportion of clinical efficacy for RFA was 90% (95% CI: 0.86–0.93) and 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83–0.94) for cryoablation.
National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Database (PDQ®)
A search of the online clinical trials database at ClinicalTrials.org on September 21, 2013 identified one ongoing randomized controlled trials. In NCT01838720, 90 patients will be randomized to compare laparoscopic RFA to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for stage T1a renal cell carcinoma tumor removal.
2014 Update
A literature search conducted through June 2014 did not reveal any new information that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
2015 Update
A literature search conducted through May 2015 did not reveal any new information that would prompt a change in the coverage statement. The key identified literature is summarized below.
Osteoid Tumors
Lanza and colleagues reported on a systematic review of percutaneous thermal ablation for osteoid osteomas in 2014 (Lanza, 2013). Included in the review were 23 articles on RFA, 3 on interstitial laser ablation and 1 with a combination of ablation techniques, totaling 27 articles and 1,772 patients. Technical success was a mean of 100% and clinical success, defined as being pain free, ranged from 94-98% depending on length of follow-up. Complications occurred in 2% of patients and included skin or muscle burn in 9 patients, 4 infections, nerve lesions or tool breakage in 3 patients each, delayed skin healing, hematoma, and failure to reach target temperature in 2 patients each and fracture, pulmonary aspiration, thrombophlebitis and cardiac arrest in 1 patient each. Eighty-six patients had tumor recurrence.
In 2014 Wang and colleagues reported on a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on RFA and partial nephrectomy for stage 1 renal tumors (Wang, 2014). Included in the review were 166 studies with a total of 9565 patients. The rate of local progression was greater with RFA than laparoscopic/robotic or open partial nephrectomy (4.6%, 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively; p<0.001.) RFA had more frequent minor complications than laparoscopic/robotic or open partial nephrectomy (13.8%, 7.5% and 9.5%, respectively; p<0.001). However, the rate of major complications was greater with open partial nephrectomy than laparoscopic/robotic partial nephrectomy or RFA (7.9%, 7.9% and 3.1%, respectively, p<0.001).
In another 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis, Katsanos and colleagues reviewed 1 RCT and 5 cohort studies (N=587) on thermal ablation (RFA or microwave) or nephrectomy for small renal tumors with a mean size of 2.5 cm (Katsanos, 2014). The local recurrence rate was 3.6% in both groups [risk ratio (RR): 0.92, 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.14, p=0.79]. Disease-free survival was also similar in both groups up to 5 years (hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.48 to 2.24, p=0.92). However, the overall rate of complications was significantly lower in the ablation patients than nephrectomy (7.4 vs. 11.1 %; pooled RR: 0.55, 95 % CI: 0.31 to 0.97, p = 0.04.
Thyroid Tumors
In 2014 Fuller et al reported on a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on RFA for benign thyroid tumors.47 Included in the review were 9 studies (5 observational studies and 4 randomized studies) totaling 306 treatments. After RFA, statistically significant improvements were reported in nodule size reduction (29.77 ml, 95% CI: -13.83 to -5.72), combined symptom improvement and cosmetic scores on the 0 to 6 scale (mean of -2.96, 95% CI: -2.66 to -3.25) and withdrawal from methimazole (OR of 40.34, 95% CI: 7.78 to 209.09) . Twelve adverse events were reported of which 2 were considered significant but did not require hospitalization.
Bone metastases: Case series have included a limited number of cases of RFA for palliation of pain from bone metastasis. However, the patient populations comprised individuals with limited or no treatment options, for whom short-term pain relief is an appropriate outcome. Therefore, the use of RFA as palliative therapy in patients with painful metastatic bone lesions may be considered medically necessary. Because data are unavailable on use of RFA as initial therapy for pain from bone metastases, this indication remains investigational.
Osteoid osteomas: There are no randomized trials for RFA for osteoid osteomas, however, uncontrolled studies have demonstrated RFA can provide adequate pain relief with minimal complications. Therefore, the use of RFA for the treatment of osteoid osteomas that cannot be successfully treated with medical treatment may be considered medically necessary.
Renal cell carcinoma: Based on the scientific data (large numbers of patients treated with follow-up) and The clinical input received, radiofrequency ablation of small (i.e. ≤4 cm) renal cancers may be considered medically necessary in those patients who are not surgical candidates due to comorbid conditions or who have baseline renal insufficiency such that standard surgical procedures would impair their kidney function.
Pulmonary tumors: While available studies are limited by study design, accumulating evidence from case series suggests that RFA may be a treatment option in selected patients with primary, non-small cell lung cancer and metastatic pulmonary tumors. Although complications have been reported with the use of RFA in the lung, evidence suggests RFA may have survival rates and have rates of procedure-related complications and mortality similar to surgery. Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice, but in patients unable to tolerate surgery due to medical comorbidities, RFA may be considered a treatment option.
Breast tumors: Studies on RFA for breast tumors have reported varied and incomplete ablation rates with concerns about post ablation tumor cell viability. Long-term improvements in health outcomes have not been demonstrated. Additionally, available studies do not allow comparisons to conventional breast-conserving procedures. Further studies, with long-term follow-up, are needed to determine whether RFA for small breast cancers can provide local control and survival rates comparable to conventional breas conserving treatment. Therefore, RFA in the treatment of breast cancer is considered investigational.
Head and neck tumors: The evidence for RFA in head and neck tumors is limited to small case series. While RFA may have a role in palliation, complications are common and severe. Therefore, RFA for the treatment of head and neck tumors is considered investigational.
Thyroid tumors: The evidence for RFA in thyroid tumors is primarily limited to case series and uncontrolled studies. While RFA has been shown to reduce thyroid tumor volume and improve clinical symptoms, complications can be common and available evidence is insufficient to determine the impact of RFA on net health outcomes. Therefore, RFA for the treatment of thyroid tumors is considered investigational.
Miscellaneous tumors: Numerous small case series have been reported on RFA for a variety of miscellaneous tumors including adrenal, soft tissue neoplasms, solid malignancies, pancreas, hamartoma, rectosigmoid, rectal and colorectal tumors. Due to the limited available evidence, RFA for these and any other miscellaneous tumors is considered investigational.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines
NCCN practice guidelines for the treatment of colon cancer67 state that ablative techniques may be considered alone or in conjunction with resection. All original sites of disease need to be amenable to ablation or resection.
NCCN guidelines for thyroid carcinoma indicate ablation techniques such as radiofrequency may be considered for palliative resection of symptomatic distant metastases.68 Ablation may also be considered for asymptomatic distant metastases when there is progressive disease.
NCCN guidelines69 indicate RFA is a thermal ablation option for the treatment of kidney cancer in select patients with clinical stage T1 lesions who are not candidates for surgery. RFA is also an option in select patients such as elderly patients and others with competing health risks.
NCCN guidelines do not address the use of RFA in head and neck cancer.
NCCN guidelines do not address RFA in the management of breast cancer.
2016 Update
A literature search conducted through April 2016 did not reveal any new information that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
2018 Update
A literature search was conducted through June 2018. There was no new information identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
2019 Update
A literature search was conducted through June 2019. There was no new information identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
2020 Update
A literature search was conducted through June 2020. There was no new information identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement. The key identified literature is summarized below.
In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Uhlig et al compared oncologic, perioperative, and functional outcomes for PN) with outcomes for various ablative techniques, including RFA and others, for small renal masses (mean diameter=2.53-2.84 cm) (Uglig, 2019). They identified 47 moderate-quality studies, mostly retrospective, published from 2005-2017, with a total of 24077 patients. Of these patients, 15238 received PN and 1877 received RFA. The network meta-analysis used PN as the reference point. Table 1 includes the statistical details of the analysis. The overall results indicated that PN had better OS and local control over ablative techniques but it was not significantly better for cancer-related mortality. In addition, ablation had fewer complications and better renal function outcomes. Across the studies included, patients treated by PN tended to be younger with less comorbidity compared with patients receiving thermal ablation—a consideration when assessing the outcomes for survival and local control.
2021 Update
Annual policy review completed with a literature search using the MEDLINE database through June 2021. No new literature was identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement. The key identified literature is summarized below.
Marshall et al conducted a single-center retrospective evaluation in 100 patients with 125 RCCs who received percutaneous RFA between 2004 and 2015 (Marshall, 2020). Median follow-up in the study was 62.8 months. Five-year overall, cancer-specific, and local progression-free survival were 75%, 92%, and 92%, respectively. Ten-year overall, cancer-specific, and local progression-free survival were 32%, 86%, and 92%, respectively. The rate of local tumor progression was higher in patients with tumors >4 cm compared to those with tumors ≤4 cm, but the difference was not statistically significant (6% vs 13%, p=0.466). The study also noted no significant changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to 2-3 years post-procedure (65.2 vs 62.1 mL/min/1.73 m2; p=0.443. The overall complication rate in the study was 9%. Limitations of the study include its retrospective design, lack of a control group, and selection bias where patients selected for RFA over surgical resection likely had worse baseline comorbidity status, which may have negatively impacted OS rates.
Andrews et al retrospectively evaluated 1,798 patients with primary cT1 renal masses who underwent PN, percutaneous RFA, or percutaneous cryoablation between 2000 and 2011 at a single center (Andrews, 2019). For cT1a tumors, 1,422 patients were treated, receiving PN (n=1055), RFA (n=180), or cryoablation (n=187). Five-year local recurrence-free survival rates for PN, RFA, and cryoablation were 97.7%, 95.9%, and 95.9%, respectively. Five-year cancer-specific survival rates for PN, RFA, and cryoablation were 99.3%, 95.6%, and 100%, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted OS risk was significantly higher for RFA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 2.44) and cryoablation (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.74) compared to PN. For cT1b tumors, 376 patients were treated, but none received RFA. Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and selection bias arising from whom was treated with PN versus ablation.
Hasegawa et al conducted a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy of RFA in patients with surgically resectable CRC lung metastases measuring 3 cm or smaller (Hasegawa, 2020). A total of 70 patients with CRC and 100 lung metastases were enrolled. All tumors were considered technically resectable, but all not all patients were clinically able to undergo surgery. A total of 85 initial RFA sessions were performed for 100 target lung metastases. The 3-year OS rate after RFA was 84%. Primary and secondary technical success rates for RFA were 96% and 100%, respectively. Over a mean follow-up of 57 ± 32 months, local tumor progression was found in 6 patients (9%) at 6 to 19 months after the initial RFA. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 41%. Grade 2 pneumothorax occurred after 18 of the 88 RFA sessions. The study is limited by its lack of a comparator arm.
2022 Update
Annual policy review completed with a literature search using the MEDLINE database through June 2022. No new literature was identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement.
2023 Update
Annual policy review completed with a literature search using the MEDLINE database through June 2023. No new literature was identified that would prompt a change in the coverage statement. The key identified literature is summarized below.
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Yanagisawa et al compared differential clinical outcomes of patients treated with PN versus those treated with ablation techniques, including RFA, cryoablation, and microwave ablation, for cT1b and cT1a renal tumors (Yanagisawa, 2022). They identified 27 studies with 13,996 total patients who received either PN or ablation for treatment of their tumors. Investigators found that in both cT1a and cT1b renal tumors, there were no differences in the percent decline of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) or in the overall complication rates between PN and ablation therapy. There was also no difference in cancer mortality rates between PN and ablation in patients with either cT1a or cT1b tumors. However, compared to ablation, PN was associated with a lower risk of local recurrence in patients with either tumor type. There was significant heterogeneity across studies, which limits conclusions.
|
|
|
|
| CPT/HCPCS: | |
|
|
|
| References: |
NCT00019955 - A Phase II Study to Evaluate Radiofrequency Ablation of RenalCancer. www.clinicaltrials.gov -NCT00019955; last accessed 10/18/2012. Abdellaoui A, Watkinson AF.(2008) Radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors. Future Oncol 2008; 4(1):103-11. Andrews JR, Atwell T, Schmit G, et al.(2019) Oncologic Outcomes Following Partial Nephrectomy and Percutaneous Ablation for cT1 Renal Masses. Eur Urol. Aug 2019; 76(2): 244-251. PMID 31060824 Aron M, Gill IS.(2007) Minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery (MINSS) for renal tumours. Part II: probe ablative therapy. Eur Urol 2007; 51(2):348-57. Comparison between surgery and radiofrequency for treatment of renal tumors. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00221728?term=NCT00221728&rank=1. Last accessed September 2009. El Dib R, Touma NJ, Kapoor A.(2012) Cryoablation vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of case series studies. BJU Int 2012; 110(4):510-6. Farrell MA, Charboneau WJ, DiMarco DS, et al.(2003) Image-guided radiofrequency ablation of solid renal tumors. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180(6):1509-13. Finelli A, Rewcastle JC, Jewett MA.(2003) Cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation: pathophysiologic basis and laboratory studies. Curr Opin Urol May 2003; 13(3): 187-91. Finelli A, Rewcastle JC, Jewett MA.(2003) Cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation: pathophysiologic basis and laboratory studies. Curr Opin Urol May 2003; 13(3): 187-91. Fuller CW, Nguyen SA, Lohia S, et al(2014) Radiofrequency ablation for treatment of benign thyroid nodules: systematic review. Laryngoscope. Jan 2014;124(1):346-353. PMID 24122763 Gervais DA, Arellano RS, et al.(2005) Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: Part 2, lessons learned with ablation of 100 tumors. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185:72-80. Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, et al.(2003) Renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and technical success with radio-frequency ablatin of 42 tumors. Radiology 2003; 226(2):417-24. Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, et al.(2005) Radiofrequency Ablation of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Part 1, Indications, Results, and Role in Patient Management Over a 6-Year Period and Ablation of 100 Tumors. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184(7):64-71. Hasegawa T, Takaki H, Kodama H, et al.(2020) Three-year Survival Rate after Radiofrequency Ablation for Surgically Resectable Colorectal Lung Metastases: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Radiology. Mar 2020; 294(3): 686-695. PMID 3193482 Hwang JJ, Walther MM, et al.(2004) Radiofrequency ablation of small renal tumors: intermediate results. J Urol 2004; 171:1814-8. Hwang JJ, Walther MM.(2004) Update on minimally invasive approaches to kidney tumors. Curr Urol Rep 2004; 5:13-8. Jacomides L, Ogan K, et al.(2003) Laparoscopic application of radiofrequency energy enables in situ renal tumor ablation and partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2003; 169:49-53. Katsanos K, Mailli L, Krokidis M, et al.(2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of thermal ablation versus surgical nephrectomy for small renal tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. Apr 2014;37(2):427-437. PMID 24482030 Kidney Cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, v2.2011. Available online at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/kidney.pdf . Last accessed September 2011. Kunkle DA, Uzzo RG.(2008) Cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the small renal mass. Cancer 2008; 113(10):2671-80. Lanza E, Thouvenin Y, Viala P, et al.(2013) Osteoid Osteoma Treated by Percutaneous Thermal Ablation: When Do We Fail? A Systematic Review and Guidelines for Future Reporting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. Dec 13 2013. PMID 24337349 Lewin JS, Nour SG, et al.(2004) Phase II clinical tiral of interactive MR imaging-guided interstitial radiofrequency thermal ablation of primary kidney tumors: initial experience. Radiology 2004; 232:835-45. Marshall HR, Shakeri S, Hosseiny M, et al.(2020) Long-Term Survival after Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation of Pathologically Proven Renal Cell Carcinoma in 100 Patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. Jan 2020; 31(1): 15-24. PMID 31767409 Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE, Parikh PM, et al.(2003) Imaging-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of solid renal masses: techniqu3es and outcomes of 38 treatment sessions in 32 consecutive patients. Am J Roentgenol Jun 2003; 180(6): 1503-8. Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE, Parikh PM, et al.(2003) Imaging-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of solid renal masses: techniques and outcomes of 38 treatment sessions in 32 consecutive patients. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180(6):1503-8. McDougal WS, Gervais DA, et al.(2005) Long-term followup of patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with radiofrequency ablations with curative intent. J Urol 2005; 174:61-63. Merkle EM, Nour SG, Lewin JS.(2005) MR imaging follow-up after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: findings in 18 patients during first 6 months. Radiology 2005; 235:1065-71. Mouraviev V, Joniau S, Van Poppel H et al.(2007) Current status of minimally invasive ablative techniques in the treatment of small renal tumours. Eur Urol 2007; 51(2):328-36. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. V.1.2009; Available online at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician . Last accessed September 2009. NCT00006255 - A Phase II Study of Magnetic Resonance Guided and Monitored Interstitial Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation of Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma, Hepatic Metastasis, and Other Sites of Solid Organ Tumor and Metastases. www.clinicaltrials.gov -NCT00006255; last accessed 10/18/2012. Neeman Z, Wood BJ.(2002) Radiofrequency ablation beyond the liver. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol Sep 2002; 5(3): 156-63. Ogan K, Jacomides L, Dolmatch BL, et al.(2002) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors: technique, limitations, and morbidity. Urology 2002; 60(6): 954-8. Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, Choyke PL, et al.(2002) Percutaneous radio frequency ablation of small renal tumors; initial results. J Urol 2002; 167(1):10-5. Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, et al.(2002) Percutaneous radio frequency ablation of small renal tumors: initial results. J Urol Jan 2002; 167(1): 10-5. Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, et al.(2002) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small renal tumors: initial results. J Uro 2002l; 167:10-5. Rendon RA, Kachura JR, Sweet JM, et al.(2002) The uncertainty of radio frequency treatment of renal cell carcinoma: findings at immediate and delayed nephrectomy. J Urol 2002; 167(4):1587-92. Salas N, Ramanathan R, Dummett S et al.(2010) Results of radiofrequency kidney tumor ablation: renal function preservation and oncologic efficacy. World J Urol 2010; 28(5):583-91. Stern JM, Svatek R, Park S et al.(2007) Intermediate comparison of partial nephrectomy and radiofrequency ablation for clinical T1a renal tumors. BJU Int 2007; 100(2):287-90. Su LM, Jarrett TW, Chan DY, et al.(2003) Percutaneous computed tomography-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal masses in high surgical risk patients: preliminary results. Urology 2003; 61(4 Suppl1): 26-33. Uhlig J, Strauss A, Rücker G, et al.(2019) Partial nephrectomy versus ablative techniques for small renal masses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar;29(3):1293-1307. PMID: 30255245. Van Poppel H, Becker F, Cadeddu JA et al.(2011) Treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2011; 60(4):662-72. Walther MC, Shawker TH, et al.(2000) A phase 2 study of radiofrequency interstitial tissue ablation of localized renal tumors. J Urol 2000; 163:1424-7. Wang S, Qin C, Peng Z, et al.(2014) Radiofrequency ablation versus partial nephrectomy for the treatment of clinical stage 1 renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin Med J(Engl). Jul 2014;127(13):2497-2503. PMID 24985591 Wood BJ, Ramkaransingh JR, et al.(2002) Percutaneous tumor ablation with radiofrequency. Cancer 2002; 94:443-51. Yanagisawa T, Mori K, Kawada T, et al.(2022) Differential efficacy of ablation therapy versus partial nephrectomy between clinical T1a and T1b renal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol. Jul 2022; 40(7): 315-330. PMID 35562311 Zagoria RJ, Hawkins AD, et al.(2004) Percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal neoplasms: factors influencing success. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:201-7. Zagoria RJ.(2003) Percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal malignancies. Radiol Clin North Am Sep 2003; 41(5): 1067-75. Zelkovic PF, Resnick MI.(2003) Renal radiofrequency ablation: clinical status 2003. Curr Opin Urol May 2003; 13(3): 199-202. |
|
|
|
|
Group specific policy will supersede this policy when applicable. This policy does not apply to the Wal-Mart Associates Group Health Plan participants or to the Tyson Group Health Plan participants.
CPT Codes Copyright © 2023 American Medical Association. |
|