Iben Lyskjær, PhD, is an associate professor and leader of the Lyskjær Group at the Department of Molecular Medicine (MOMA) at Aarhus University.

Iben Lyskjær, PhD

Ablation, a minimally invasive procedure, may be as effective as surgery for treating small kidney cancers, with faster recovery and fewer complications, according to new research.

The findings come from a 10-year nationwide registry-based cohort study of Danish adults following 1900 patients diagnosed with stage T1a renal cell carcinoma and suggest ablation could potentially reduce complications, hospital stays, and costs.

The study included 1,862 patients, with a median age of 64, and a majority of men (n = 1305). They were categorized into the ablation group (n = 540), the resection group (n = 1002), or the nephrectomy, surgical removal of all or part of a kidney, group (n = 320). In the ablation group, 42 patients underwent radiofrequency ablation, while the remaining patients underwent cryoablation.

There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of cancer progression between patients who had ablation and the resection group. However, local recurrence of the disease was more frequent following ablation (2.41%) than resection (1.20%) and nephrectomy (0%).

According to investigators, distant metastasis occurred more frequently in patients who underwent nephrectomy (4.38%) than in those who underwent resection (1.90%) and ablation (1.67%). Investigators noted patients with ablation had the shortest hospital stays, and most returned home the same day. Additionally, the report of the fewest 30-day post-treatment hospital contacts, suggested a reduced instance of complications.

For additional insight into the new research, 

spoke to Iben Lyskjær, PhD, associate professor and leader of the Lyskjær Group at the Department of Molecular Medicine (MOMA) at Aarhus University.

 The data was prefaced by the fact that stage T1a renal cell carcinoma is often found incidentally during CT scans for other reasons. How has this led to a gap in care, and how can clinicians proactively manage this pressure on their health care systems?

Lyskjær: The widespread use of cross-sectional imaging has led to a marked increase in the incidence of small renal masses detected incidentally, particularly stage T1a tumors. Many of these lesions are asymptomatic and biologically indolent, but once detected, they enter a clinical pathway that often includes repeated imaging, multidisciplinary evaluation, and intervention.

This has created a structural pressure on healthcare systems: more patients are diagnosed, but not all necessarily require invasive treatment. The key challenge is distinguishing which tumors require active intervention from those that can be safely monitored.

Proactive management involves strengthening risk stratification strategies, incorporating active surveillance where appropriate, and ensuring access to minimally invasive treatment options such as ablation for selected patients. The goal is not simply to treat more, but to treat more appropriately.

HCPLive: When discussing the prospect of ablation with their patients compared to standard of care, what key factors and risk identifiers should clinicians consider?

Lyskjær: When discussing ablation compared to partial nephrectomy, clinicians should consider:

Tumor size (strictly ≤4 cm for T1a in most settings)

Patient preference after balanced counseling

Yet, shared decision-making remains central.

Local recurrence of the disease was more frequent following ablation than resection and nephrectomy. Can you explain this finding in the context of why ablation remains a beneficial option? Is there ever a point when it wouldn’t be?

It is true that local recurrence rates are generally higher after ablation compared to surgical resection. This is expected because surgery physically removes the entire tumor with a margin, whereas ablation relies on complete thermal destruction in situ.

However, several important nuances should be emphasized:

Local recurrences after ablation are often detected early through structured follow-up.

Cancer-specific survival for appropriately selected T1a tumors appears comparable in many studies.

Therefore, the slightly higher local recurrence rate must be interpreted in the context of lower procedural burden and shorter hospital stay. Ablation are not be appropriate for larger tumors, centrally located lesions, or in cases where imaging guidance cannot ensure adequate margins.

Are there any findings on whether radiofrequency ablation had any distinct outcomes from cryoablation? Is this an area of research you would consider meaningful?

Lyskjær: Our study primarily focused on cryoablation, with only few radiofrequency ablation procedures performed, and therefore we could not compare the difference in outcome of these. While radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation are both established thermal techniques, cryoablation offers certain technical advantages, including real-time visualization of the ice ball, which may allow more precise control of margins.

Further direct comparative research would be meaningful, particularly in standardized cohorts with long-term follow-up. However, operator experience and institutional expertise are likely just as important as the specific energy modality.

HCPLive: Looking ahead, how should clinicians implement these findings into their healthcare systems immediately to build a long-term strategy to improve patient outcomes?

Lyskjær: Clinicians should not interpret our findings as a call to replace surgery, but rather to refine patient selection.

Ensuring that ablation is considered in multidisciplinary tumor boards for appropriate T1a cases

Strengthening follow-up protocols after ablation

Integrating patient-specific factors (comorbidity, renal function, life expectancy) into decision-making as well as patient preference

Continued evaluation of functional outcomes

Clear national or international guidelines on patient selection

The overarching aim is individualized care — selecting the right treatment for the right patient — rather than promoting one modality universally.

Minimally invasive procedure effectively treats small kidney cancers. EurekAlert! Published March 3, 2026. Accessed March 3, 2026. 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1117633

Articles

A 10-year Danish registry cohort of 1,862 adults with T1a RCC found ablation yielded cancer progression risk comparable to partial resection, while shortening length of stay and reducing early post-treatment hospital contacts. Local recurrence was modestly higher with ablation (2.41%) versus resection (1.20%) and nephrectomy (0%), yet recurrences are often detected early and amenable to repeat ablation. Distant metastases were most frequent after nephrectomy. Rising incidental detection of small renal masses intensifies demand for risk stratification, surveillance, and appropriate minimally invasive options.

Lyskjaer walks clinicians through 10-year data from a nationwide cohort study comparing ablation and surgery for renal cancer.