Analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on periprocedural pain during percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma

Background: Percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma is frequently a favourable treatment alternative, especially in elderly patients suffering from co-morbidities. Also, it is less resource-demanding than conventional surgery of renal carcinoma, and one may, therefore, assume that the incidence of this procedure may increase. Analgesia is necessary during this intervention. The aim of this study was to explore the possibility of analgosedation and its relation to patient comfort and safety during percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma. Methods: Forty-six patients, sedated with dexmedetomidine and remifentanil, supplemented with infiltration anaesthesia (lidocaine 1%), underwent percutaneous (radiofrequency or microwave) ablation of renal carcinoma in this prospective study. Results: The patients expected pain intensity around the numerical rating score (NRS) 4.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.5–5.5), which was slightly lower than pain experienced during the procedure NRS 5 (IQR 2–7; p = 0.49). Eight percent of the patients needed supplementary morphine during the ablation procedure. Sedation score did not differ during ablation, at arrival to or discharge from the recovery ward. Median periprocedural treatment time was 12 minutes (IQR 12–16). Treatment time did not correlate with experienced pain (R2=0.000074, p = 0.96). The median length of stay in the recovery room was 120 minutes (IQR 84–154). There were seven serious adverse events. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study has shown that analgosedation during percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma can be performed with a generally tolerable degree of patient satisfaction. However, pain occurs and should be managed adequately. Patient safety must be a major concern for the anaesthetic care

Microwave ablation of 105 T1 renal tumors : technique efficacy with a mean follow-up of two years

Background: Thermal ablation (TA) with radiofrequency (RFA) or cryoablation (CA) are established treatments for small renal masses (≤4 cm). Microwave ablation (MWA) has several potential benefits (decreased ablation time, less susceptibility to heat-sink, higher lesion temperatures than RFA) but is still considered experimental considering the available small-sample studies with short follow-up. Purpose: To evaluate technique efficacy and complications of our initial experience of renal tumors treated using percutaneous MWA with a curative intent. Material and Methods: A total of 105 renal tumors (in 93 patients) were treated between April 2014 and August 2017. MWA was performed percutaneously with computed tomography (CT) guidance under conscious sedation (n=82) or full anesthesia. Patients were followed with contrast-enhanced CT scans at six months and yearly thereafter for a minimum of five years. The mean follow-up time was 2.1 years. The percentage of tumors completely ablated in a single session (primary efficacy rate) and those successfully treated after repeat ablation (secondary efficacy rate) were recorded. Patient and tumor characteristics as well as complications were collected retrospectively. Results: The median patient age was 70 years and median tumor size was 25 mm. Primary efficacy rate was 96.2% (101/105 tumors). After including two residual tumors for a second ablation session, secondary efficacy was 97.1% (102/105). Periprocedural complications were found in 5.2% (5/95) sessions: four Clavien-Dindo I and one Clavien-Dindo IIIa. One postprocedural Clavien-Dindo II complication was found. Conclusion: MWA has high efficacy rates and few complications compared to other TA methods at a mean follow-up of two years

Split renal function after treatment of small renal masses : comparison between radiofrequency ablation and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) are used to treat small renal masses (SRM; ≤4 cm), although there are conflicting results in the changes in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after treatment. On contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) images, the quantity and quality of renal function can be evaluated by calculating the split renal function (SRF). PURPOSE: To compare renal function after RFA or LPN treatment of SRMs through evaluation of the SRF in the affected kidney. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single T1a renal tumors successfully treated with RFA (n = 60) or LPN (n = 31) were retrospectively compared. The SRF was calculated on pre-treatment CE-CT images and the first follow-up exam after completed treatment. Serum creatinine and eGFR values were collected simultaneously. To compare renal function outcomes, Student's t-test and multivariable linear regression models (adjusted to RFA/LPN treatment, pre-treatment SRF/eGFR, BMI, age, tumor characteristics, and Charlson Comorbidity Index) were used. RESULTS: SRF was reduced in both groups, although reduction was greater in the LPN group (LPN -5.7%) than in the RFA group (RFA -3.5%; P = 0.013). After adjusted analysis, the LPN group still had greater SRF reduction (difference 3.2%, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.5; P = 0.001). There was no difference between groups in the change of creatinine/eGFR after treatment. CONCLUSION: Both RFA and LPN are nephron-sparing when treating SRMs. However, in this series, reduction of SRF in the affected kidney was smaller after RFA, having a more favorable preservation of renal function than LPN

Intratumorally injected pro-inflammatory allogeneic dendritic cells as immune enhancers : a first-in-human study in unfavourable risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating pre-clinical data indicate that the efficient induction of antigen-specific cytotoxic CD8+ T cells characterizing viral infections is caused by cross-priming where initially infected DCs produce an unique set of inflammatory factors that recruit and activate non-infected bystander DCs. Our DC-based immunotherapy concept is guided by such bystander view and accordingly, we have developed a cellular adjuvant consisting of pre-activated allogeneic DCs producing high levels of DC-recruiting and DC-activating factors. This concept doesn't require MHC-compatibility between injected cells and the patient and therefore introduces the possibility of using pre-produced and freeze-stored DCs from healthy blood donors as an off- the-shelf immune enhancer. The use of MHC-incompatible allogeneic DCs will further induce a local rejection process at the injection site that is expected to further enhance recruitment and maturation of endogenous bystander DCs. METHODS: Twelve intermediate and poor risk patients with newly diagnosed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) where included in a phase I/II study. Pro-inflammatory allogeneic DCs were produced from a leukapheresis product collected from one healthy blood donor and subsequently deep-frozen. A dose of 5-20 × 10(6) DCs (INTUVAX) was injected into the renal tumor twice with 2 weeks interval before planned nephrectomy and subsequent standard of care. RESULTS: No INTUVAX-related severe adverse events were observed. A massive infiltration of CD8+ T cells was found in 5 out of 12 removed kidney tumors. No objective tumor response was observed and 6 out of 11 evaluable patients have subsequently received additional treatment with standard tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Three of these 6 patients experienced an objective tumor response including one sunitinib-treated patient who responded with a complete and durable regression of 4 brain metastases. Median overall survival (mOS) is still not reached (currently 42.5 months) but has already passed historical mOS in patients with unfavourable risk mRCC on standard TKI therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that intratumoral administration of proinflammatory allogeneic DCs induces an anti-tumor immune response that may prolong survival in unfavourable risk mRCC-patients given subsequent standard of care. A randomized, multi-center, phase II mRCC trial (MERECA) with INTUVAX in conjuction with sunitinib has been initiated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01525017