Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy and safety of ablative therapies in the management of primary localised renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ryan S. Huang, Ronald Chow, A. Benour, David C. Chen, G. Boldt, C. J. D. Wallis, A. Swaminath, Charles B. Simone et al.

The Lancet Oncology, 2025

8,910 participants · 32 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive and minimally invasive ablative treatments, including stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, have emerged as key treatment options for managing renal cell carcinoma, especially for patients who are unsuitable for surgery. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of these emerging treatment methods in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library for publications between Jan 1, 2000, and March 1, 2024. Eligible articles were observational studies and randomised controlled trials including at least five adult patients (age ≥18 years) with primary and localised renal cell carcinoma treated with SBRT, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, or cryoablation and that reported on local control outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then full texts of eligible studies were independently evaluated by the same reviewers, with disagreements resolved via discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. Summary estimates were extracted from published reports manually using a standardised data extraction form. The primary endpoint was local control rate at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years after start of treatment. A meta-analysis was conducted using a DerSimonian and Laird model to summarise local control rates. Publication bias was evaluated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8,910 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free