New study finds cryoablation is an effective and more affordable option for treating kidney cancer
Illustration of percutaneous cryoablation used to treat renal cell carcinoma.
Percutaneous cryoablation, a minimally invasive treatment which targets cancer cells with extreme cold via a needle, was as effective at treating a type of kidney cancer as removing tumours via a robot-assisted surgery, according to a new study published in the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Journal.1
By using cryotherapy to freeze only the areas of cancer in the kidney, the normal tissue is left intact. The study found this therapy, when used to treat a type of cancer known as renal cell carcinoma (RCC) instead of surgically removing the tumour, led to shorter hospital stays for patients and a drop of almost a third in healthcare system costs.
Comparable clinical outcomes over a five-year period
The study used real-world data from two Danish hospitals involving 190 patients with kidney tumours up to 7 cm across. Cryotherapy was compared with the standard treatment for such tumours: either surgery, or a surgical technique known as robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), in which a surgical robot removes the tumour through small incisions in the abdomen. The results show near-identical health benefits over a five-year period: there were no significant differences between focused cryotherapy and partial nephrectomy in terms of local recurrence, metastases, or significant complications.
Less time in hospital for patients
There were however significant differences in the average length of hospital stay, with 1.13 days for those treated with cryoablation versus 1.90 days for those treated with a partial nephrectomy, with most of the cryoablation cases performed as an outpatient procedure. Partly as a result, the overall cost of treatment for cryoablation was much lower, at €18,795 vs €27,520.
The two different treatment options had identical quality-adjusted life year (QALY) values, which measure the value of health outcomes by combining the quantity and quality of life into a single number.
“Cryoablation is an innovative, minimally invasive treatment that costs less and requires less time in hospital,” said Kathleen Van Vlierberghe, vice president of Peripheral Interventions for Boston Scientific in EMEA. “That’s better for patients, and it also helps to ease the pressure on healthcare systems.”
Data supports both clinical and cost-effectiveness findings from other studies
The clinical results of this real-world study align with other studies which find comparable oncological outcomes for the two treatment options, showing that cryoablation should be considered as an option for patients with T1 renal tumours (no more than 7 cm and only in the kidney).2
The economic findings are also comparable to those in other studies from Brazil, France, and the US, indicating that cost structures and resource use patterns are not unique to Denmark, the study’s country.3
Burden of renal cell carcinoma on patients and healthcare services
Renal cell carcinoma is the most common form of kidney cancer, with around 435,000 new cases globally and 156,000 deaths in 2022.4 RCC accounts for the vast majority (90-95%) of renal malignancies.5
A 2019 study had predicted new RCC cases in Denmark would increase from 922 in 2020 to 1,017 by 2030.6 But recent data from the Danish Renal Cancer database showed 1,091 new cases in the year ending July 2023, meaning the rise in cases has already exceeded the long-term forecast for 2030 set five years ago.7
This rising incidence of cancer is exacerbating the already heavy workloads facing healthcare providers – ultimately delaying the diagnosis and treatment of patients with kidney cancer.
Current guidelines from the European Association of Urology recommend cryoablation as an alternative to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with tumours up to 4 cm across for patients who are frail or who have comorbidities.8 Similar recommendations (for tumours up to 3 cm) are in the latest guidelines from the American Urological Association.9
You can read the full paper here.
1 Junker, T., Thorlund, M.G., Nielsen, T.K. et al. Comparison of health economics in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and CT-guided cryoablation for the management of T1 renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of a prospective Danish cohort. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-025-04224-2
2 Neves JB et al., Nephron Sparing Treatment (NEST) for Small Renal Masses: A Feasibility Cohort-embedded Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Percutaneous Cryoablation and Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy, European Urology 85(4): 333-336, April 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.07.012.
Xing et al., Comparative Effectiveness of Thermal Ablation, Surgical Resection, and Active Surveillance for T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma, Radiology 288 (1), May 2018, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171407.
Thompson RH et al., Comparison of partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal masses. European Urology 67(2):252-9, February 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.021.
3 Wu X et al., Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and percutaneous cryoablation for cT1a renal cell carcinoma. European Radiology 2023; 33(3): 1801-11.
Garcia RG, Katz M, Falsarella PM, Percutaneous Cryoablation versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy of Renal T1A Tumors: a Single-Center Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology 44(6): 892-900, June 2021.
4 World Cancer Research Fund International, “Latest kidney cancer date,” 2022.
5 Renal Cell Carcinoma, Merck Manual.
6 S.H. Næraa SH et al., “Burden of renal cancer in Nordic countries,” Scandinavian Journal of Urology 53(4):177–184, 2019.
7 Dansk Renal Cancer database (DaRenCaData): Dansk Urologisk Cancergruppe Årsrapport 2023.
8 European Association of Urology, EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma, 2025.
9 American Urological Association, Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: Evaluation, Manager, and Follow Up, 2021.