ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
Percutaneous cryoablation versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for small renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective cost analysis at Japanese single-institution.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of health economics in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and CT-guided cryoablation for the management of T1 renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of a prospective Danish cohort.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo direct cost comparison has been conducted between percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for clinical T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Japan. This study aimed to compare their costs.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 212 PCAs (including 155 with transcatheter arterial embolization) and 119 RAPN cases performed between December 2017 and May 2022.
resultsPCA patients were older with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and history of previous RCC treatment, cardiovascular disease, and antithrombotic drug use than RAPN patients. PCA was associated with a significantly shorter procedure time and hospitalization duration with fewer major complications than those associated with RAPN. While PCA incurred a slightly lower total cost (1,123,000 vs. 1,155,000 yen), it had a significantly higher procedural cost (739,000 vs. 693,000 yen) and markedly worse total (- 93,000 vs. 249,000 yen) and procedural income-expenditure balance (- 189,000 vs. 231,000 yen) than those of RAPN. After statistical adjustment, PCA demonstrated significantly higher total (difference: 114,000 yen) and procedural costs (difference: 72,000 yen), alongside significantly worse total (difference: - 358,000 yen) and procedural income-expenditure balances (difference: - 439,000 yen). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was more favorable for PCA than for RAPN.
conclusionFor high- risk patients, PCA demonstrated a safer option with shorter hospitalization duration than those of RAPN. Although PCA was more cost-effective, its higher procedural cost and unfavorable income-expenditure balance require careful evaluation, especially for large tumors that require three or more needles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.