4.4 Article

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 Cryoablation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.12.1224

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine if modified RENAL (mRENAL) score and its individual components have superior predictive value relative to the RENAL nephrometry score in prediction of complications and recurrence after percirtaneous renal cryoablation. Materials and Methods: Primary masses treated with CT guided percutaneous renal cryoablation between June 2007 and May 2016 were retrospectively'reviewed. AENAL'and mRENAL scores were used to stratify Masses into low, medium, and high complexity tertiles. Complications were characterized by SIR criteria. Predictors of complications and local progression were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: There were 95 renal cryoablation procedures in 86 patients. Of ablations, 89 had at least 1 follow-up imaging study, with median follow-up of 29 months. There were 11 (12.4%) complications, including 5 (6.5%) major complications. Mass complexity, as measured by mRENAL complexity tertile, was associated with increased risk of complications on multivariate analysis (P = .045). Endophytic location was the only individual ordinal component of the RENAL and mRENAL scores associated with complications (P = .021). Local progression occurred in 7 (8.3%) masses. Complexity as measured by either scoring system was not associated with local progression. Only diameter > 3 cm was associated with increased risk of local progression (hazard ratio = 9.9, 95% confidence interval = 2.1-45, P = .003). Conclusions: mRENAL score was predictive of complications and tumor size was predictive of recurrence. Use of mRENAL score for complications and tumor size for recurrence should allow for simpler risk stratification and mote accurate patient, counseling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据