Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective trial evaluates safety and effectiveness of cryoablation in inoperable Stage IA NSCLC, suggesting promising local control.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation for Stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in medically inoperable patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 176 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous cryoablation for biopsy-proven Stage IA NSCLC at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2025. Inclusion criteria included tumor size ≤3 cm, medically inoperable disease or patient refusal of surgery, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of <2. Procedures were performed under computed tomography (CT) guidance with a standardized triple freeze-thaw protocol. Follow-up involved routine CT and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging at standardized intervals. Overall survival (OS) and local progression-free survival (LPFS) and adverse event rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of the 170 patients with complete follow-up data, the 1-year and 3-year LPFS rates were 91.8% and 89.4%, respectively, whereas the overall local progression rate was 10.6%. OS rates were 100.0% at 1 year and 94.7% at 3 years. On multivariate analysis, only larger tumor size (Stage IA3 vs IA2) was a significant independent predictor of local progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.71; P = .001). Pneumothorax requiring intervention was the most common adverse event (17.6%), with no in-hospital deaths, air embolism, or massive pulmonary hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous cryoablation provides effective local control with a favorable safety profile in patients with medically inoperable Stage IA NSCLC particularly with tumor smaller than 2.0 cm. These results support further exploration of cryoablation as a primary treatment modality for this patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rehman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: