This is an open access article under the terms of a license that permits non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2022 The Authors. Société Internationale d'Urologie Journal, published by the Société Internationale d'Urologie, Canada. Key Words Competing Interests Article Information Renal cell carcinoma, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, thermal ablation, microwave ablation, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, SABR, radiofrequency ablation, RFA None declared. Received on August 1, 2022 Accepted on August 27, 2022 This article has been peer reviewed. Soc Int Urol J. 2022;3(6):437–449 DOI: 10.48083/UEML5802 2022 WUOF/SIU International Consultation on Urological Diseases: Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma Muhammad Ali, 1,2 Vanessa Acosta Ruiz,3 Sarah P. Psutka,4 David Liu,5,6,7 Shankar Siva,1,2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia 2 Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia 3 Department of Surgical Sciences, Radiology, Uppsala, Sweden 4 Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Washington, United States 5 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 6 School of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 7 Department of Interventional Radiology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States Abstract Surgery with either partial or radical nephrectomy remains the standard of care for localized primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, most RCCs are detected in an older age group, and some may have multiple comorbidities that preclude surgery. Thermal ablation (TA) with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation (CA), or microwave ablation (MWA) is considered an alternative to extirpative surgical procedures for select patients with small renal tumors. There is more than 90% post-ablation local control in carefully selected patients with reported complication rates of less than 10%. Most thermal ablation require only a single procedure. More recently, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as an attractive noninvasive treatment modality for elderly patients with comorbidities and localized RCC. It has shown more than 90% local control rates for both small and relatively larger tumors (> 4 cm). Modest post-SABR renal function decline has been observed. Despite most patients presenting with mild or moderate chronic kidney disease there is less than a 5% chance of progression to end-stage renal disease. This article aims to summarize the key evidence and ablative treatment’s optimal patient selection, efficacy, and toxicity. Introduction Surgery is the standard of care for primary localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, many patients in this population have comorbidities that render them at high risk for complications from both anesthesia and surgery. Moreover, partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) is associated with a potential risk for long-term impairment of renal function and chronic kidney disease (CKD)[1–3]. In patients where surgery is contraindicated, active surveillance (AS) is commonly used, particularly in patients with multiple comorbidities, tumor size of less than 2 cm, and tumor growth kinetics of less than 5 mm/year[4]. For patients with small renal masses (SRMs) who are not considered good candidates for surgery or have declined surgery and are not candidate for AS, thermal ablation (TA) has been endorsed by multiple international guidelines as a safe and effective alternative[5,6]. More recently, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), a form of hypofrac- tionated radiation, has emerged as an alternative noninvasive treatment option for patients who are not suitable for surgery. The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines have endorsed SABR as a treatment option for patients considered unsuitable or who have declined other treatment options[6]. The 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) version 1.0 Kidney Cancer guidelines state, “SABR may be considered for medically inop- erable patients with stage I kidney cancer (category 2B) [and patients] with stage II/III kidney cancer (category 3)”[7]. 437SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES mailto:muhammad.ali%40petermac.org?subject= http://SIUJ.org The aim of this article is to review the role of abla- tive therapies (TA/SABR) for localized primary kidney cancer. It will also report and summarize each modali- ty’s optimal patient selection, efficacy, and toxicity. Thermal Ablation TA refers to the local application of thermal energy to a tumor[8]. When TA is applied to a renal tumor, the thermal energy is delivered directly into the tumor via an antenna or probe inserted through an image- guided percutaneous approach or surgically via an open or laparoscopic approach. Renal tumors can be ablated via application of extreme heat (radiofrequency [RFA], microwave [MWA]) or cooling ablation (CA); the advantages and disadvantages of each system are summarized in Table 1. Small (T1) localized renal tumors are well suited for ablation because of their rounded shape and relative isolation from temperature-sensitive structures in the retroperitoneum[9]. Given the in situ nature of the treat- ment, evaluation of treatment efficacy relies on contin- ued surveillance via computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Indications and Patient Selection Historically, TA has been reserved for patients who are considered poor surgical candidates due to renal insufficiency or a high burden of comorbid conditions. International guidelines now support consideration of TA in treating patients with a renal tumor of < 3 cm as a primary treatment[10–12]. TA is also considered an effective treatment for patients with a solitary kidney, renal insufficiency, multiple tumors, or hereditary tumors. Ablation is the treatment of choice in patients with compromised renal function where dialysis and/or nephrectomy are not desired[10,12]. Percutaneous TA has the advantage of avoiding the temporary vascu- lar clamping, which is required during PN[13,14]. Also, the sphere-shaped ablation zone can be adjusted to minimize unnecessary damage to the normal renal parenchyma. An appropriate patient selection for TA can gener- ate oncologic outcomes comparable to those of neph- ron-sparing surgery, with the added benefit of better preservation of renal function[15–18]. Technical Considerations The effect of ablative therapies varies across tumors. Tumor size is one of the most important factors; RFA and MWA have excellent outcomes for masses of < 3 cm. Masses measuring 3 to 4 cm or larger may need repeated treatment or multiple probes[19–22]. Microwave ablation should theoretically be able to treat larger tumors efficiently given the physics behind the Abbreviations AS active surveillance CA cooling ablation CKD chronic kidney disease CSS cancer-specific survival CT computed tomography IROCK International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney MRI magnetic resonance imaging MWA microwave ablation PN partial nephrectomy RCC renal cell carcinoma RFA radiofrequency ablation RN radical nephrectomy SABR stereotactic ablative radiotherapy SMRs small renal masses TA thermal ablation TABLE 1. Advantages and disadvantages between ablative technologies Advantages Disadvantages RFA • Most used system, more studies are available • Short treatment time (12–30 min ablation time) • Treatment of maximum 3 cm tumors • More affected by heat sink effect • RF current may be redirected to high electrolyte content of urine MWA • Achieves larger ablation zones than RFA • Quicker than RFA (5–8 min ablation time) • Less affected by heat sink effect • Newer system; needs further validation but principles of thermal coagulation same as RFA • More painful than RFA CA • Can treat larger tumors (> 4 cm) • Can treat central tumors • Real-time monitoring of ice ball (however not reflective of the zone of cell death) • Requires several probes; increased risk for post- procedural hemorrhage • Argon (and possibly helium) canister required • Time-consuming (30–40 min ablation time) CA: cooling ablation; MWA: microwave ablation; RFA: radiofrequency ablation. 438 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 SIUJ.ORG 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES http://SIUJ.org larger active heating zone. Although T1b tumors have been treated with secondary efficacy rates of up to 95%, current reports are limited by small samples (the largest series included 56 patients)[23–25]. High-output centers have reported good tumor control with single-session treatment for larger tumors using CA[26,27]. However, the upper size limit at which complete ablation can be expected remains to be defined. Moreover, larger tumors also have an increased risk for hemorrhage with TA modalities. Centrally located tumors are at increased risk for treatment failure as proximity to the larger hilar vessels washes out the extreme temperature gradients generated during ablation procedures, which is necessary for cell death[19,28]. CA appears to provide better oncologic outcomes for centrally located tumors than RFA[29,30]. RFA for central tumors is associated with low rate of complications but with severe sequelae, such as uret- eropelvic junction obstruction, urinoma, and proximal ureteral stricture[31,32]. The early reports of CA appear to show that CA safe, with fewer complications than those reported with RFA[30,33]. The insulative properties of the surrounding retro- peritoneal fat and the greater distance to large hilar vessels render exophytic tumors easier to ablate in a single session[19,20]. Endophytic tumors are surrounded by renal parenchyma, through which temperature gradi- ents may dissipate more rapidly, resulting in increased risk for treatment failure[34,35]. Hydrodissection via saline instillation and intentional patient positioning can increase the distance between adjacent structures and the tumor target[34] (Figure 1). Retrograde pyeloperfusion can be similarly used to protect the ureter and ureteropelvic junction from thermal injury, with resultant risk for perforation, urine leak, and/or subsequent stricture[34]. Renal tumor scoring systems can aid preprocedural planning and tumor selection[36,37]. A 43-year-old woman with prior history of von Hippel-Lindau syndrome and polycystic kidneys was treated for a 2.6-cm exophytic tumor in the lower pole of the left kidney. On the day of the procedure, the tumor (arrow) is seen in contact with the psoas muscle when the patient is examined in the prone position (A). Two MWA probes are inserted in the tumor (blue arrows) and through a spinal needle (yellow arrow) (B), carbon dioxide (c, arrow) is insufflated, and the tumor is displaced from the psoas muscle (C, D). FIGURE 1. Example of a patient requiring tissue displacement prior to ablation A B C D 439SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma http://SIUJ.org To summarize, a small (< 3 cm) exophytic tumor, with a minimum of 1 cm distance from the adjacent anatomic structures represents ideal morphologic characteristics for tumor ablation. Preprocedural Planning Before TA, patient evaluation should include relevant comorbidities, risk factors for RCC, familial history of hereditary RCC syndromes, and blood workup including coagulative profile and renal function[38]. The American Urological Association/ Society of Urologic Oncology (AUA/SUO) guidelines recommend renal mass biopsy prior to TA to characterize the tumor histolog y, subsequently informing posttreatment surveillance[10]. Percutaneous ablation can be performed under either general anesthesia or conscious sedation. Image-guided percutaneous techniques are preferred over laparoscopic approaches due to a lower risk for associated compli- cations, shorter hospitalization and operative times, reduced morbidity, reduced opioid analgesic require- ment, and faster recovery time[15,16,39–41]. Preprocedural imaging aims to evaluate the feasibil- ity of ablation, access site, the number of probes needed, the tumor’s location relative to other structures, and the need for any ancillary procedures[42,43]. CT is most commonly the modality of choice for both procedural planning and probe placement at the time of treatment. MRI can be used but is more expensive and techni- cally demanding. Ultrasound alone allows for direct monitoring during probe placement; however, it may be limited in its ability to visualize adjacent structures, and thus is commonly used in combination with CT[43,44]. Peri- and Post-Procedural Complications TA is considered a safe procedure with very few complications (7.4%) compared to surgery (11%)[15]. The incidence of significant complications after TA is lower than following surgery (2.3% vs. 5%)[15,45]. Complications during ablation of renal tumors include the following: 1. Post-ablation syndrome: A transient and self-limiting constellation of symptoms experienced following TA characterized by fever, nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Larger volumes of necrosis may prolong symptoms. Fewer than 10% of patients experience the full spectrum of symptoms, while 60% report flu-like symptoms within the first 10 days following ablation[46]. 2. Bleeding: Most commonly, TA-associated bleeding is minor (6%), while massive hemorrhage requiring transfusion is extremely rare (< 1% of cases) [19,43,47]. Some tumors may require pretreatment embolization, most often in the context of highly complex tumors[43,47,48]. 3. Hematuria: This is a rare side effect of TA (0.5–1%) that generally spontaneously resolves within 12 to 24 hours of treatment[43]. If hematuria persists, thermal damage to the pelvicalyceal system should TABLE 2. Long-term cohort studies of percutaneous thermal ablation of T1 renal tumors Author, year of publication Study type Tumor sizea (cm) No. patients Median follow-up (years) LC (%) CSS DFS Andrews et al. (2019)[17] R T1 367 Median RFA 1.9 cm CA 2.8 cm 367 RFA 7.5 CA 6.3 RFA 95.9% CA 95.9% RFA 96% CA 100% NR Psutka et al. (2012)[18] R T1a 143 T1b 42 Median 3 cm 185 6.43 T1a 96.1% T1b 91.9% NR T1a 91.5% T1b 74.5% Georgiades et al. (2014)[48] P T1a 115 T1b 19 Median 2.8 cm 134 5 97% 100% NR Yu et al. (2021)[88] R T1a 275 T1b 48 Mean 2.9 cm 323 5.1 T1a 98.1% T1b 88.7% T1a 95.9 % T1b 91.4% T1a 85.2% T1b 69.1% amedian or mean. CA: cooling ablation; CSS: cancer-specific survival; DFS: disease-free survival; LC: local control; NR: not reported; P: prospective; R: retrospective; RFA: radiofrequency ablation. 440 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 SIUJ.ORG 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES http://SIUJ.org be suspected. In the case of hydronephrosis due to clot obstruction, placement of a ureteric stent and/or manual irrigation of the bladder may be necessary. 4. Ureteric/Collecting System Injury: This complication is associated with treatment of central tumors. Although rare (1%–3% of cases[43]), injury can result in ureteric strictures, urine leak, urinoma, or formation of a urinary fistula[40,43,47], which may present in a delayed fashion (weeks to months following treatment). 5. Neuropraxia: Nerve injury (1%–3%) can occur following ablation of tumors close to the psoas muscle, or intercostal or lumbar nerves[43]. One study found that nerve injury resolved in 90% of affected patients within 6 months of treatment[47]. Other rare complications include bowel perforation[43], infection[43,49], pneumothorax, skin burn or freeze at the site of entry, and tumor seeding along the entry site[9,41,47]. Evidence Synthesis Local Tumor Control Current literature suggests that careful patient and tumor selection can result in the successful ablation of nearly all renal tumors, with low recurrence rates over short and intermediate follow-up. To date, however, TA has not been compared against surgery in a randomized controlled trial. The available (retrospective) data is limited by selection bias, institutional practices, and local expertise, impacting generalizability of TA across centers, providers, and patients. The sum of the comparative efficacy data suggests comparable oncologic and safety outcomes between TA and radical or partial nephrectomy for T1a disease[50]. The largest-cohort studies of the long-term oncologic results following ablation are reported in Table 2. Comparative Studies In a retrospective review of 1424 RCC patients (367 treated with RFA or CA; 1055 with PN), there was no difference in the clinical outcome of T1a disease, with 5-year CSS of 96%, 100%, and 99% for RFA, CA, and PN, respectively. However, a higher death rate from RCC was observed for CA compared to PN in this subset. For 376 cT1b patients, 5-year CSS was lower for CA compared to PN (91% vs. 98%, respectively). Despite the limitations associated with the retrospective analysis design and risk of selection bias, the authors concluded that any clinically significant difference between ablation and PN of cT1a tumors was unlikely but encouraged further research regarding the oncologic efficacy of CA for cT1b tumors[17]. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 107 studies, Pierorazio et al. compared the effectiveness of AS, TA, and RN or PN for T1 tumors. They reported an increased incidence of local recurrence following a single ablation session but no difference when secondary ablations were considered. TA was associated with less perioperative morbidity and complications compared to PN. There was no difference in the CSS across the differ- ent management options[50]. Katsanos et al. reported similar findings as well[15]. Selection bias is likely to contribute to some of these findings; for example, surgery is often favored for healthier patients and ablation for patients with a high burden of comorbidity or limited projected life expec- tancy. However, current data suggests that TA can be considered a practical alternate approach to surgery in small T1a tumors, and sometimes for larger tumors in patients unsuitable for or at higher risk from partial nephrectomy. Several groups report a significantly lower cost for ablation (up to a third) than for surgery[51–53]. These cost-savings are the short procedure time, outpatient nature, limited ancillary perioperative costs, and lower complication rate[51,52]. Theoretically, when consider- ing the occasional need for retreatment post-TA, TA may contribute to additional expense due to further treat- ments. Some data support that radiofrequency ablation is still less expensive than nephron-sparing surgery[54]. However, the authors concluded that future studies are necessary before using the analysis for policy-level deci- sion-making. Furthermore, the analysis was limited to short-term cost-effectiveness. Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) Preclinical studies on mouse models with implanted human RCC cell lines and in vitro cell culture indicate that the entrenched dogma of radioresistance of RCC may not be relevant in the era of high doses per fraction, which can be safely delivered with the advent of SABR[55,56]. These reports were reinforced by excellent local control (LC) rates using SABR in patients with extracranial metastatic RCC[57]. Since then, multiple retrospectives and prospective phase 1 and 3 studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of SABR[58–73]. The results of selected published studies are summarized in Table 3. Patient Selection for SABR Current published studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of SABR in patients with localized RCC who are inoperable, those who refuse surgery, and those with baseline CKD and high risk for renal replacement therapy with PN or RN. SABR has the advantage of being a noninvasive treatment that does not require anesthesia or sedation. Therefore, it may be a more suitable option for older and/or more frail patients, 441SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma http://SIUJ.org TABLE 3. Summary of selective Studies evaluating SABR for the treatment of primary renal cell carcinoma Author, year of publication Study type Tumor sizea (cm) No. patients Dose (Gy)/ fraction LC (%) Median follow-up (mo) Grelier et al. (2021)[71] R 4.0 23 35/5–7 96 22 Grubb et al. (2021)[68] P 3.7 11 48/3 54/3 60/3 90 34.3 Tetar et al.(2020) [69] R 5.6 36 40/5 95.2 16.4 Siva et al. ( 2020)[70] R 4.9 95 — 97.1 32.4 Correa et al. (2019)[80] MA 4.6 372 — 97.2 28 Siva et al. (2017)[61] P 4.8 33 26/1 42/3 100 24 Chang et al. (2016)[59] R 4.0 16 30–40/6 100 19 Sun et al. (2016)[66] R 3.9 40 21–48/3 92.7 NA Ponsky et al. (2015)[65] P 57.9 (median tumor volume) 19 24–48/4 No evidence of local progression in 15 evaluable patients 14 Staehler et al.(2015)[62] P — 40 25/1 96 28 amedian or mean. cm: centimeter; Gy: gray; LC: local control; MA: meta-analyses; mo: months; NA: not available; P: prospective; R: retrospective. 442 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 SIUJ.ORG 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES http://SIUJ.org TABLE 4. Suggested SABR dose constraints. Adapted from IROCK Consensus Statement, Siva S et al. Future Oncol. 2016;12(5):637-645[78] Organ at risk 1 fraction 3 fractions 5 fractions Spinal cord < 1 mL to 8 Gy < 0.03 mL to 12 Gy < 0.03 mL to 18 Gy Max 22.2 Gy < 0.5 mL to 23 Gy < 0.03 mL to 27.5 Gy Small bowel < 20 mL to 14 Gy Full circumference < 12.5 Gy PRV, D0.03 mL < 26 Gy < 10 mL to 11.4 Gy < 1 mL to 24 Gy PRV, D0.03 mL < 30 Gy < 5 mL to 20 Gy Max 30 Gy Stomach < 10 mL to 11 Gy < 5 mL to 22.5 Gy < 10 mL to 16.5 Gy 5 mL to < 22.5 Gy Max 30 Gy < 5 mL to 18 Gy Max 30 Gy Large bowel PRV, D1.5 mL< 26 Gy PRV, D1.5 mL < 42 Gy 20 mL to < 24 Gy Max 38 Gy < 20 mL to 25 Gy Chest wall N/A < 700 mL to 30 Gy < 70 mL to 37 Gy Skin Max 24 Gy < 10 mL to 30 Gy < 10 mL to 15 Gy < 0.03 mL to 30 Gy Liver N/A < 700 mL to 15 Gy V17 < 66% < 700 mL to 15 Gy Heart 15 mL to < 16 Gy Max 27.9 Gy < 15 mL to 32 Gy Max 38 Gy Contralateral kidney ALARA ALARA V10 < 33% ALARA Ipsilateral kidney ALARA: minimize volume receiving > 50% isodose ALARA: minimize volume receiving > 50% isodose ALARA: minimize volume receiving > 50% isodose ALARA: amount of radiation dose is as low as reasonably achievable; IROCK: International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney; N/A: not applicable; PRV: planning organ at risk volume. 443SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma http://SIUJ.org those requiring ongoing anticoagulation, or those with multiple competing comorbidities that would place them at unacceptably high risk from anesthesia, surgery, or TA. Furthermore, SABR has the added advantage of having minimal impact on quality of life, which reverted to baseline at subsequent follow-up in a study in older and frail patients[74]. The treatment options are limited for patients with tumors measuring ≥4 cm in maximal diameter, who are not surgical candidates. TA is not suitable for patients with T1b RCC due to the increased risk for local recur- rence and complications[5,6]. In this subset of patients with T1b disease, SABR has shown excellent outcomes and can be an attractive approach[69,70]. Treatment of RCC in a patient with a solitary kidney is a challenging clinical scenario. PN, if feasible, remains the standard of care for renal masses in patients with a solitary kidney. However, ablative treatments are a good alternative for patients where PN is not possible due to tumor location or size. In challenging scenar- ios with RCC in a single kidney where other neph- ron-sparing approaches (PN, TA) are not technically or medically feasible, SABR has shown excellent tumor-re- lated outcomes while avoiding the lifelong need for dialysis[58,75]. Technical Consideration Different treatment units are used to deliver SABR to primary RCC[61,62,65,69,73]. Irrespective of the treatment system used, respiratory motion management is essential for treatment planning and delivery, due to the motion of kidneys with respiration[76]. The most commonly used technique in linear accelerator-based treatment is the internal target volume (ITV) concept, where a thin-cut 4-dimensional CT (4D-CT) is obtained during simulation. Respiratory gating or tumor tracking using implanted fiducial markers may be used to allow for a reduction in ITV, and this is usually incorporated into the delivery of SABR using CyberKnife. A typical linear accelerator-based SABR plan is shown in Figure 2. Target volumes for SABR are defined as per the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report (ICRU) 91[77], which has been suggested previously by the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK) consen- sus statement as well[78]. Similarly, the IROCK group recommended organs at risk (OARs) with accept- able dose constraints, adapted and summarized in Table  4[78]. The IROCK consensus statement recom- mended 25–26 Gy, 35–45 Gy, and 40–50 Gy in 1, 3, and 5 fractions, respectively[78]. Clinical Evidence for SABR in Localized Primary RCC Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have reported encouraging results with SABR in patients with localized RCC. In the largest reported prospective case-control study, Staehler et al. treated 40 patients with renal masses who were anticipated to require dialysis if they underwent nephrectomy with a single fraction of 25 Gy[62]. After a median follow-up of 28 months, the authors reported an LC of 96%, with a minimal decline in renal function. In a prospective phase 1 trial (FASTRACK) of 33 patients with a median tumor size of 4.8 cm (range, 2.1–7.9), freedom from local progression, distant progression, and overall survival (OS) at 2 years were 100%, 89%, and 92%, respectively[61]. Treatment- related grade 1–2 toxicities (flank pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) occurred in 26 of 33 patients (78%), and grade 3 fatigue occurred in only one patient. While early results of prospective studies are promising, these studies have some inherent limitations: (1) the small number of patients treated, (2) the lack of long- term follow-up, and (3) the varying dose fractionation schemes. In a pooled analysis involving 223 patients with a mean tumor size of 4.4 cm, the IROCK group reported LC, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and progression-free FIGURE 2. Axial (left), coronal (middle), and sagittal sections (right) showing highly conformal radiation dose distribution with a typical SABR plan 444 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 SIUJ.ORG 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES http://SIUJ.org survival (PFS) rates of 97.8%, 91.9%, and 65.4% at 4 years[79]. In another series of 95 patients with cT1b (> 4 cm tumor size) localized RCC treated with SABR, Siva et al. (2020) reported CSS, OS, and PFS rates of 96.1%, 83.7%, and 81.0% at 2 years and 91.4%, 69.2%, and 64.9% at 4 years, respectively[70]. At 4 years, local, distant, and any failure rates were 2.9%, 11.1%, and 12.1%, respectively. A systematic review and meta-anal- yses published in 2019 involving 372 patients with local- ized RCC (median size, 4.6 cm) involving 26 studies (11 of which were prospective) reported that the random effect estimates for LC were 97.2% with SABR[80]. The grade 1, 2, and 3–4 toxicity rates were 37.5%, 8.8%, and 1.5% (95% CI, 0–4.3%), respectively. Prospective studies have used a range of dose frac- tionation regimens. The prospective dose-escalation studies evaluated doses ranging from 21 to 60 Gy in 3 fractions[68,81,82] and 24 to 48 Gy in 4 fractions[65]. They showed dose escalation to 60 Gy in 3 and 48 Gy in 4 fractions without dose-limiting toxicity. The ongoing phase 2 study TROG 15.03 (FASTRACK II) evaluates 26 Gy in 1 fraction for tumors of ≤ 4 cm and 42 Gy in 3 fractions for tumors of > 4 cm in size[83]. Response Evaluation Currently, the interpretation of post-SABR response and identification of characteristics that coincide with treatment response or recurrence remain a key challenge. LC post-SABR is currently measured using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) by either CT or MRI. Currently, lack of growth and subsequent slow regression in size is thought to represent a successful response to treatment. Given that small RCCs are associated with slow growth kinetics, radiographic responses following SABR are also attenuated. In a study of 40 patients, Sun et al. reported an average regression of 0.37 cm in the maximum dimension of RCC per year[66]. Unlike TA, where the absence of contrast enhancement post-procedure assesses the response, there are no significant changes in contrast enhancement after SABR[66]. Early results of functional MRI (fMRI) have shown some promise in detecting early response to SABR[84]; however, further exploration is warranted to validate the role of fMRI in characterizing the efficacy of SABR. Routine post-SABR biopsy should be considered experimental. In a recent prospective study involving 11 patients with dose escalation to 60 Gy in 3 fractions, 5 of 5 posttreatment biopsies in the expansion cohort were positive by hematoxylin and eosin staining[68]. However, there was no radiological progression in subse- quent follow-up. Moreover, staining of Ki-67, a nuclear protein associated with cell proliferation, was negative in the post-biopsy samples, confirming that cell viability on microscopy does not necessarily indicate ongoing active cell proliferation. Renal Function Post-SABR Given that many patients with RCC are at risk for long- term CKD following treatment, concerns exist regarding the impact of SABR on renal function. The published literature demonstrates a mild to moderate decrease in baseline renal function following SABR. In the IROCK pooled analysis of 223 patients (mean tumor size, 4.4 cm) treated with renal SABR, the average glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decreased by ~5.5 mL/minute after SABR, with 6 patients requiring dialysis[79]. Similarly, a systematic review and meta-analyses involving 372 patients showed a post-SABR GFR change of -7.7mL/ min from baseline[80]. Though the renal function decline is subclinical in published studies, patients with CKD 4–5 at baseline undergoing SABR should be counseled regarding ESRD risk following treatment and the potential need for renal replacement therapy[59]. Future Perspectives One ongoing, prospective, randomized pilot trial (NCT03811665) compares SABR with RFA to manage SR Ms. However, there are a lways cha llenges in completing large, randomized trials comparing different interventional modalities. One way to counteract these difficulties can be to conduct comparative studies using existing datasets and establish prospective registries. Considering encouraging results with a combination of SABR and MWA in patients with larger (> 5 cm) RCCs[85], an ongoing prospective clinical trial is exploring the safety and efficacy of this combination in patients with RCCs of > 4 cm (NCT02782715). Evidence supports that SABR and TA also have potent immunomodulatory effects[86,87]. It will be interesting to combine ablative treatments, SABR or TA, with immunotherapies to optimize immune response to improve long-term outcomes. One trial (NCT05024318) assesses SABR with or without pembrolizumab in patients with T1B-T3, N0 or N1, 0 or low-volume M1 RCC before nephrectomy. Take-Home Messages • Patients with a newly diagnosed, localized renal mass should undergo a detailed assessment, including hist- ory focusing on comorbidity burden, physical exam- ination, renal function assessment, and appropriate comprehensive tumor staging imaging. In patients considering TA or SABR, renal mass biopsy is recom- mended to characterize the histology of the tumor. 445SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma http://SIUJ.org • Each case should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting consisting of a urologist, interventional radiologist, and radiation oncologist, including a central imaging review. • Ablative treatments, including TA or SABR, can be considered in patients at high risk for adverse outcomes following surgery who decline surgery and in whom AS is not optimal. Local expertise should be considered for decision-making. • SRMs less than 4 cm (ideally < 3 cm), predominantly exophytic and distant to the renal hilum, should be considered for TA preferentially to SABR. • Tumors measuring more than 4 cm (ideally > 3 cm), predominantly endophytic and centrally located, could be considered preferentially for SABR over TA. • Ongoing imaging at regular specified intervals is essential to monitor the treatment outcome. Acknowledgments Muhammad Ali is a PhD candidate who is supported through an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship. Shankar Siva is funded by the Cancer Council Victoria Colebatch fellowship. References 1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin.2013;63(1):11-30. 2. Demirjian S, Lane BR, Derweesh IH, Takagi T, Fergany A, Campbell SC. Chronic kidney disease due to surgical removal of nephrons: relative rates of progression and survival. J Urol.2014;192(4):1057-1062. 3. Kim SP, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Weight CJ, Han LC, Murad MH, et al. Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol.2012;188(1):51-57. 4. Campbell SC, Uzzo RG, Karam JA, Chang SS, Clark PE, Souter L. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: evaluation, management, and follow-up: AUA Guideline: Part II. J Urol.2021;206(2):209-218. 5. European Assocation of Urology (EAU) guidelines on Renal Cell Cacrcinoma. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guideline/renal-cell- carcinoma/#7. Accessed August 20, 2022. 6. Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, Rioux-Leclercq N, Bex A, Khoo V, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol.2019;30(5):706-720. 7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Kidney Cancer (Version 2.2022). Available at: ht tps://w w w.nccn.org /professionals/ physician_gls/pdf/kidney.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2022. 8. Ahmed M, Solbiati L, Brace CL, Breen DJ, Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria--a 10-year update. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2014;25(11):1691-1705.e4. 9. Breen DJ, Railton NJ. Minimally invasive treatment of small renal tumors: trends in renal cancer diagnosis and management. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2010;33(5):896-908. 10. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, Bass EB, Cadeddu JA, Chang A, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol.2017;198(3):520-529. 11. Finelli A, Ismaila N, Bro B, Durack J, Eggener S, Evans A, et al. Management of small renal masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol.2017;35(6):668-680. 12. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Fernández-Pello S, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: the 2019 update. Eur Urol.2019;75(5):799-810. 13. Ginzburg S, Uzzo R, Walton J, Miller C, Kurz D, Li T, et al. Residual parenchymal volume, not warm ischemia time, predicts ultimate renal functional outcomes in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. Urology.2015;86(2):300-305. 14. Song C, Bang JK, Park HK, Ahn H. Factors influencing renal function reduction after partial nephrectomy. J Urol.2009;181(1):48-53; discussion -4. 15. Katsanos K, Mailli L, Krokidis M, McGrath A, Sabharwal T, Adam A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of thermal ablation versus surgical nephrectomy for small renal tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2014;37(2):427-437. 16. Acosta Ruiz V, Batelsson S, Onkamo E, Wernroth L, Nilsson T, Lonnemark M, et al. Split renal function after treatment of small renal masses: comparison between radiofrequency ablation and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Acta Radiol.2020:284185120956281. 17. Andrews JR, Atwell T, Schmit G, Lohse CM, Kurup AN, Weisbrod A, et al. Oncologic outcomes following partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal masses. Eur Urol.2019;76(2):244-251. 18. Psutka SP, Feldman AS, McDougal WS, McGovern FJ, Mueller P, Gervais DA. Long-term oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol.2013;63(3):486-492. 19. Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, McDougal WS, Mueller PR. Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: part 1, Indications, results, and role in patient management over a 6-year period and ablation of 100 tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2005;185(1):64-71. 446 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 SIUJ.ORG 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES http://SIUJ.org 20. Wah TM, Irving HC, Gregory W, Cartledge J, Joyce AD, Selby PJ. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of renal cell carcinoma (RCC): experience in 200 tumours. BJU Int.2014;113(3):416-428. 21. Aar ts BM, Prevoo W, Meier M A J, Bex A, Beets-Tan RGH, Klompenhouwer EG, et al. Percutaneous microwave ablation of histologically proven T1 renal cell carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2020;43(7):1025-1033. 22. Zagoria RJ, Traver MA, Werle DM, Perini M, Hayasaka S, Clark PE. Oncologic efficacy of CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2007;189(2):429-436. 23. Yu J, Wang H, Cheng ZG, Liu FY, Li QY, He GZ, et al. A multicenter 10-year oncologic outcome of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation of clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma: will it stand the test of time? Eur Radiol.2022;32(1):89-100. 24. Atwell TD, Vlaminck JJ, Boorjian SA, Kurup AN, Callstrom MR, Weisbrod AJ, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of stage T1b renal cell carcinoma: technique considerations, safety, and local tumor control. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2015;26(6):792-799. 25. Chen Y, Wu X, Zhou J, Zhang J, Huang J, Huang Y, et al. Thermal ablation assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b renal tumors. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol.2022;31(2):179-184. 26. Atwell TD, Farrell MA, Leibovich BC, Callstrom MR, Chow GK, Blute ML, et al. Percutaneous renal cryoablation: experience treating 115 tumors. J Urol.2008;179(6):2136-2140; discussion 40-1. 27. Breen DJ, Bryant TJ, Abbas A, Shepherd B, McGill N, Anderson JA, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumours: outcomes from 171 tumours in 147 patients. BJU Int.2013;112(6):758-765. 28. Acosta Ruiz V, Lonnemark M, Brekkan E, Dahlman P, Wernroth L, Magnusson A. Predictive factors for complete renal tumor ablation using RFA. Acta Radiol.2016;57(7):886-893. 29. Hinshaw JL , Lubner MG, Ziemlewic z TJ, Fred T. L ee J, Brace CL . Percutaneous tumor ablation tools: microwave, radiofrequency, or cryoablation–what should you use and why? RadioGraphics.2014;34(5):1344-1362. 30. Rosenberg MD, Kim CY, Tsivian M, Suberlak MN, Sopko DR, Polascik TJ, et al. Percutaneous cr yoablation of renal lesions with radiographic ice ball involvement of the renal sinus: analysis of hemorrhagic and collecting system complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2011;196(4):935-939. 31. Johnson DB, Saboorian MH, Duchene DA, Ogan K, Cadeddu JA. Nephrectomy after radiofrequency ablation-induced ureteropelvic junction obstruction: potential complication and long-term assessment of ablation adequacy. Urology.2003;62(2):351-352. 32. Johnson DB, Solomon SB, Su LM, Matsumoto ED, Kavoussi LR, Nakada SY, et al. Defining the complications of cryoablation and radio frequency ablation of small renal tumors: a multi-institutional review. J Urol.2004;172(3):874-877. 33. Warlick CA, Lima GC, Allaf ME, Varkarakis I, Permpongkosol S, Schaeffer EM, et al. Clinical sequelae of radiographic iceball involvement of collecting system during computed tomography-guided percutaneous renal tumor cryoablation. Urology.2006;67(5):918-922. 34. Schmit GD, Kurup AN, Weisbrod AJ, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Wass CT, et al. ABLATE: a renal ablation planning algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2014;202(4):894-903. 35. Tsivian M, Lyne JC, Mayes JM, Mouraviev V, Kimura M, Polascik TJ. Tumor size and endophytic growth pattern affect recurrence rates after laparoscopic renal cryoablation. Urology.2010;75(2):307-310. 36. Kutikov A , Uz zo RG. T he R.E.N. A .L. nephrometr y score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol.2009;182(3):844-853. 37. Gahan JC, Richter MD, Seideman CA, Trimmer C, Chan D, Weaver M, et al. The Performance of a modified RENAL nephrometr y score in predicting renal mass radiofrequency ablation success. Urology.2015;85(1):125-129. 38. Higgins LJ, Hong K. Renal Ablation Techniques: State of the Art. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2015;205(4):735-741. 39. Finley DS, Beck S, Box G, Chu W, Deane L, Vajgr t DJ, et al. Percutaneous and laparoscopic cryoablation of small renal masses. J Urol.2008;180(2):492-498; discussion 8. 40. Hui GC, Tuncali K, Tatli S, Morrison PR, Silverman SG. Comparison of percutaneous and surgical approaches to renal tumor ablation: metaanalysis of effectiveness and complication rates. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2008;19(9):1311-1320. 41. Acosta Ruiz V, Ladjevardi S, Brekkan E, Haggman M, Lonnemark M, Wernroth L, et al. Periprocedural outcome after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for T1 renal tumors: a modified R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score adjusted comparison. Acta Radiol.2019;60(2):260-268. 42. Ahmed M, Solbiati L, Brace CL, Breen DJ, Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria-a 10-year update. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2014;25(11):1691-1705 e4. 43. Krokidis ME, Orsi F, Katsanos K, Helmberger T, Adam A. CIRSE guidelines on percutaneous ablation of small renal cell carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2017;40(2):177-191. 44. Andersson M, Hashimi F, Lyrdal D, Lundstam S, Hellstrom M. Improved outcome with combined US/CT guidance as compared to US guidance in percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small renal masses. Acta Radiol.2015;56(12):1519-1526. 45. Dai Y, Covarrubias D, Uppot R, Arellano RS. Image-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of central renal cell carcinoma: assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in 31 tumors. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2017;28(12):1643-1650. 447SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma http://SIUJ.org 46. Zhong J, Bambrook J, Bhambra B, Smith J, Cartledge J, Ralph C, et al. Incidence of post-ablation syndrome following image-guided percutaneous cryoablation of renal cell carcinoma: a prospective study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2018;41(2):270-276. 47. Atwell TD, Carter RE, Schmit GD, Carr CM, Boorjian SA, Curry TB, et al. Complications following 573 percutaneous renal radiofrequency and cryoablation procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2012;23(1):48-54. 48. Georgiades CS, Rodriguez R. Efficacy and safety of percutaneous cr yoablation for stage 1A /B renal cell carcinoma: results of a prospective, single-arm, 5-year study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(6):1494-1499. 49. Crawford D, vanSonnenberg E, Kang P. Infectious outcomes from renal tumor ablation: prophylactic antibiotics or not? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2018;41(10):1573-1578. 50. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Patel HD, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, et al. Management of renal masses and localized renal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol.2016;196(4):989-999. 51. Castle SM, Gorbatiy V, Avallone MA, Eldefrawy A, Caulton DE, Leveillee RJ. Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2013;31(7):1327-1332. 52. Larcher A, Sun M, Dell’Oglio P, Trudeau V, Boehm K, Schiffmann J, et al. Mortality, morbidity and healthcare expenditures after local tumour ablation or partial nephrectomy for T1A kidney cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol.2017;43(4):815-822. 53. Wang Y, Chen Y W, Leow JJ, Levy AC, Chang SL, Gelpi FH. Cost- effectiveness of management options for small renal mass: a systematic review. Am J Clin Oncol.2016;39(5):484-490. 54. Pandharipande PV, Gervais DA, Mueller PR, Hur C, Gazelle GS. Radiofrequency ablation versus nephron-sparing surger y for small unilateral renal cell carcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology.2008;248(1):169-178. 55. Ning S, Trisler K, Wessels BW, Knox SJ. Radiobiologic studies of radioimmunotherapy and external beam radiotherapy in vitro and in vivo in human renal cell carcinoma xenografts. Cancer. 1997;80(12 Suppl):2519-2528. 56. Walsh L, Stanfield JL, Cho LC, Chang CH, Forster K, Kabbani W, et al. Efficacy of ablative high-dose-per-fraction radiation for implanted human renal cell cancer in a nude mouse model. Eur Urol.2006;50(4):795-800; discussion 57. Kothari G, Foroudi F, Gill S, Corcoran NM, Siva S. Outcomes of stereotactic radiotherapy for cranial and extracranial metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Acta Oncol.2015;54(2):148-157. 58. Svedman C, Karlsson K, Rutkowska E, Sandström P, Blomgren H, Lax I, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy of primary and metastatic renal lesions for patients with only one functioning kidney. Acta Oncol.2008;47(8):1578-1583. 59. Chang JH, Cheung P, Erler D, Sonier M, Korol R, Chu W. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for primar y renal cell carcinoma in non-surgical candidates: initial clinical experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol).2016;28(9):e109-114. 60. Lo CH, Huang W Y, Chao HL, Lin KT, Jen YM. Novel application of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy using CyberKnife® for early-stage renal cell carcinoma in patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease: Initial clinical experiences. Oncol Lett.2014;8(1):355-360. 61. Siva S, Pham D, Kron T, Bressel M, Lam J, Tan TH, et al. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for inoperable primary kidney cancer: a prospective clinical trial. BJU Int.2017;120(5):623-630. 62. Staehler M, Bader M, Schlenker B, Casuscelli J, Karl A, Roosen A, et al. Single fraction radiosurgery for the treatment of renal tumors. J Urol.2015;193(3):771-775. 63. Svedman C, Sandström P, Pisa P, Blomgren H, Lax I, Kälkner KM, et al. A prospective phase II trial of using extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy in primary and metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Acta Oncol.2006;45(7):870-875. 64. Pham D, Thompson A, Kron T, Foroudi F, Kolsky MS, Devereux T, et al. Stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy for primary kidney cancer: a 3-dimensional conformal technique associated with low rates of early toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2014;90(5):1061-1068. 65. Ponsky L, Lo SS, Zhang Y, Schluchter M, Liu Y, Patel R, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for poor surgical candidates with localized renal cell carcinoma. Radiother Oncol.2015;117(1):183-187. 66. Sun MR, Brook A, Powell MF, Kaliannan K, Wagner A A, Kaplan ID, et al. Effect of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy on the Growth Kinetics and Enhancement Pattern of Primary Renal Tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2016;206(3):544-553. 67. Kaidar-Person O, Price A, Schreiber E, Zagar TM, Chen RC. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for large primar y renal cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer.2017;15(5):e851-e854. 68. Grubb WR, Ponsky L, Lo SS, Kharouta M, Traughber B, Sandstrom K, et al. Final results of a dose escalation protocol of stereotactic body radiotherapy for poor surgical candidates with localized renal cell carcinoma. Radiother Oncol.2021;155:138-143. 69. Tetar SU, Bohoudi O, Senan S, Palacios MA, Oei SS, Wel AMV, et al. The role of daily adaptive stereotactic mr-guided radiotherapy for renal cell cancer. Cancers (Basel).2020;12(10). 70. Siva S, Correa RJM, Warner A, Staehler M, Ellis RJ, Ponsky L, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for ≥t1b primary renal cell carcinoma: a repor t from the International Radiosurger y Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2020;108(4):941-949. 448 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 SIUJ.ORG 2022 WUOF/SIU INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION ON UROLOGICAL DISEASES http://SIUJ.org 71. Grelier L, Baboudjian M, Gondran-Tellier B, Couderc AL, McManus R, Deville JL, et al. Stereotactic Body radiotherapy for frail patients with primary renal cell carcinoma: preliminary results after 4 years of experience. Cancers (Basel).2021;13(13). 72. Senger C, Conti A, Kluge A, Pasemann D, Kufeld M, Acker G, et al. Robotic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for renal cell carcinoma in patients with impaired renal function. BMC Urol.2019;19(1):96. 73. Nomiya T, Tsuji H, Hirasawa N, Kato H, Kamada T, Mizoe J, et al. Carbon ion radiation therapy for primary renal cell carcinoma: initial clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2008;72(3):828-833. 74. Swaminath A, Cheung P, Glicksman RM, Donovan EK, Niglas M, Vesprini D, et al. Patient-reported quality of life following stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary kidney cancer - results from a prospective cohort study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol).2021;33(7):468-475. 75. Correa RJM, Louie AV, Staehler M, Warner A, Gandhidasan S, Ponsky L, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy as a treatment option for renal tumors in the solitary kidney: a multicenter analysis from the IROCK. J Urol.2019;201(6):1097-1104. 76. Siva S, Pham D, Gill S, Bressel M, Dang K, Devereux T, et al. An analysis of respiratory induced kidney motion on four-dimensional computed tomography and its implications for stereotactic kidney radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol.2013;8:248. 77. Wilke L, Andratschke N, Blanck O, Brunner TB, Combs SE, Grosu AL, et al. ICRU report 91 on prescribing, recording, and reporting of stereotactic treatments with small photon beams : statement from the DEGRO/DGMP working group stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery. Strahlenther Onkol.2019;195(3):193-198. 78. Siva S, Ellis RJ, Ponsky L, Teh BS, Mahadevan A, Muacevic A, et al. Consensus statement from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney for primary renal cell carcinoma. Future Oncol.2016;12(5):637-645. 79. Siva S, Louie AV, Warner A, Muacevic A, Gandhidasan S, Ponsky L, et al. Pooled analysis of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma: a report from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK). Cancer.2018;124(5):934-942. 80. Correa RJM, Louie AV, Zaorsky NG, Lehrer EJ, Ellis R, Ponsky L, et al. The emerging role of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus.2019;5(6):958-969. 81. Kaplan I, Redrosa I, Martin C, Collins C, Wagner A. Results of a phase I dose escalation study of stereotactic radiosurgery for primary renal tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2010;78(3):S191. 82. McBride S, Wagner A, Kaplan I. A phase 1 dose-escalation study of robotic radiosurgery in inoperable primary renal cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2013;87(2):S84. 83. Siva S, Chesson B, Bressel M, Pryor D, Higgs B, Reynolds HM, et al. TROG 15.03 phase II clinical trial of Focal Ablative STereotactic Radiosurger y for Cancers of the Kidney-FASTR ACK II. BMC cancer.2018;18(1):1-10. 84. Reynolds HM, Parameswaran BK, Finnegan ME, Roettger D, Lau E, Kron T, et al. Diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI as an imaging biomarker for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) of primary renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One.2018;13(8):e0202387. 85. Blitzer GC, Wojcieszynski A, Abel EJ, Best S, Lee FT, Jr., Hinshaw JL, et al. Combining stereotactic body radiotherapy and microwave ablation appears safe and feasible for renal cell carcinoma in an early series. Clin Genitourin Cancer.2021;19(5):e313-e318. 86. Chow J, Hoffend NC, Abrams SI, Schwaab T, Singh AK, Muhitch JB. Radiation induces dynamic changes to the T cell repertoire in renal cell carcinoma patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(38):23721-23729. 87. Chu KF, Dupuy DE. Thermal ablation of tumours: biological mechanisms and advances in therapy. Nat Rev Cancer.2014;14(3):199-208. 88. Yu J, Wang H, Cheng ZG, Liu FY, Li QY, He GZ, et al. A multicenter 10-year oncologic outcome of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation of clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma: will it stand the test of time? Eur Radiol.2021. 449SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 6 • November 2022 Ablative Therapies for Localized Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma http://SIUJ.org