ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Comparison of the safety and effectiveness of cryoablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma in organ or tissue transplant recipients as compared to non-transplant patients.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this single center retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cryoablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma(RCC) in patients who have undergone organ or tissue transplant of any kind. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll patients who underwent cryoablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma at a single academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. The patients complications, local recurrence free survival (LRFS), overall recurrence free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were reviewed. Patients were separated into transplant and non-transplant cohorts and compared. Given baseline differences in the cohorts a propensity score matching analysis was performed.
resultsIn total 148 patients with 160 lesions were included, including 19 lesions in transplant and 141 lesions in non-transplant patients. When comparing the transplant and non-transplant cohorts there was no difference in rate of local recurrence (1(1/19, 5.3%) vs. 12(12/141, 8.5%)(p = 1)) or overall recurrence (1(1/19, 5.3%) vs. 15(15/141, 10.6%)(p = 0. 696)). Kaplan-Meier curves did not show any difference in the LRFS (p = 0.452, Hazard ratio (HR):0.56(95% confidence interval (CI):0.12-2.56) or OS (p = 0.430, HR(95%CI):0.7(0.29-1.7), respectively) between transplant and non-transplant patients. However, the RFS was significantly better in transplant as compared to non-transplant patients (HR:0.35(95%CI: 0.14-0.83), p = 0.018). When a propensity score matching analysis was performed there was no significant difference in LRFS (33.3(interquartile range (IQR):12.9-72.4) vs. 35.1(IQR:17.8-84.4) months, p = 0.881), RFS (33.3(IQR:12.9-72.4) vs. 35.1(IQR:17.8-84.4) months, p = 0.881), or OS (33.3(IQR:12.9-72.4) vs. 38.8(IQR:17.8-84.4) months, p = 1).
conclusionsCryoablation of T1 RCC may be as safe and effective in transplant patients as non-transplant patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40504390What 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.