Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Small Renal Masses

Sponsor
St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (Other)
Overall Status
Withdrawn
CT.gov ID
NCT00922948
Collaborator
(none)
0
1
2
60
0

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to verify the oncological efficacy and safety of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of small renal tumors.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Procedure: Cryoablation
  • Procedure: Radiofrequency ablation
Phase 2

Detailed Description

By enrolling all patients treated with CA or RFA, this study will document for the first time the safety and the short and long term efficacy of CA compared to RFA as well as provide urologists and decision makers currently unavailable information on CA in Canada.

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Actual Enrollment :
0 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment
Masking:
None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose:
Treatment
Official Title:
A Prospective Randomized Pilot Trial of Cryoablation (CA) Versus Radio Frequency Ablation (RFA) for the Management of Small Renal Masses
Study Start Date :
Mar 1, 2010
Actual Primary Completion Date :
Mar 1, 2015
Actual Study Completion Date :
Mar 1, 2015

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
Experimental: Cryoablation

Procedure: Cryoablation
Cryoneedles and one temperature probe are inserted under endoscopic and sonographic guidance.

Active Comparator: Radiofrequency ablation

Radiofrequency ablation

Procedure: Radiofrequency ablation
Thermal injury is the predominant mechanism of action of RFA. A high-frequency alternating current emitted from the exposed noninsulated portion of the electrode generates frictional heat, agitating ions in the tissue surrounding the tip of the needle.

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Treatment failure rate. [Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 24, 36, 48]

Secondary Outcome Measures

  1. Renal function - GFR of less than 60 ml per min per 1.73 m2. Serum creatinine and creatinine clearance. [Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48]

  2. Average percentage decrease in tumor size. [Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48]

  3. Intra and post-operative complications rates. [Weeks 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48]

  4. Quality of life data. [Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48]

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
18 Years to 90 Years
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
No
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Patients with tumors that progress in size while on a watchful waiting protocol;

  • Patients with multiple tumors;

  • Patients with a tumor in a solitary kidney;

  • Patients with poor renal function and a renal tumor;

  • Patients with significant co-morbidities that may benefit from a less invasive approach.

Exclusion Criteria:
  • Large tumors > 4.0cm;

  • Unable to have a general anesthetic;

  • Unable to comply with follow-up protocol (i.e., routine CT or MRI and a follow-up biopsy);

  • Uncorrectable bleeding diathesis;

  • Evidence of metastatic disease.

Contacts and Locations

Locations

Site City State Country Postal Code
1 McMaster Institute of Urology - St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton Hamilton Ontario Canada L8N 4A6

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Anil Kapoor, MD, McMaster Institute of Urology, McMaster University

Study Documents (Full-Text)

None provided.

More Information

Publications

None provided.
Responsible Party:
Anil Kapoor, MD, FRCSC, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00922948
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • IIS-001-09
First Posted:
Jun 17, 2009
Last Update Posted:
Jul 27, 2016
Last Verified:
Jul 1, 2016
Keywords provided by Anil Kapoor, MD, FRCSC, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Study Results

No Results Posted as of Jul 27, 2016