In our recently published study in The Journal of Urology, we evaluated intermediate-term oncologic outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) versus cryoablation (CA) in the treatment of renal tumors greater than 3 cm in size at Washington University in St. Louis. Using a propensity score-matched cohort of 170 patients, we found that while disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly lower in the cryoablation group—largely due to a higher rate of local treatment failure—there were no statistically significant differences in metastasis-free survival (MFS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) between the two modalities.
Our findings suggest that in well-selected patients—particularly those with comorbidities or high surgical risk—cryoablation may still offer acceptable oncologic control for tumors exceeding the traditional 3 cm guideline threshold. This study adds to a growing body of literature supporting the selective use of ablation in larger renal masses and underscores the real-world trade-offs clinicians must consider between local control and treatment tolerability.
Importantly, this work raises an underappreciated concept: cryoablation as a serial or staged therapy, in contrast to the single-intervention paradigm of partial nephrectomy. In our cohort, many treatment failures were managed with salvage ablation or surveillance, allowing for durable short-term disease control. Still, further research is warranted to explore the optimal management of post-ablation recurrences.
Additionally, the data challenge the rigid reliance on a 3 cm cutoff as a determinant of ablative eligibility. Given that tumor complexity and patient frailty may be more relevant than size alone, future guidelines may benefit from a more risk-adapted approach.
That said, our study has important limitations. It was retrospective in nature, with potential for residual confounding even after careful propensity score matching. Additionally, although the median follow-up was approximately 4–5 years, longer-term data are needed to fully assess differences in metastasis and cancer-specific mortality. The low event rate also limited statistical power for some secondary outcomes.
Looking ahead, two important areas warrant further investigation:
- A randomized trial comparing PN and CA for tumors >3 cm to more definitively establish oncologic equivalency or non-inferiority.
- A trial comparing active surveillance, ablation, and PN in patients with small renal masses.
As our management of small renal masses becomes more nuanced, data from such trials will be critical in guiding shared decision-making that balances oncologic control, procedural morbidity, and patient preferences.
Written by: Nicholas A. Pickersgill, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Urology Service, New York, NY
Read the Abstract