Table 4.

Practical pros and cons of different types of percutaneous ablation in cT1 RCC

	Pro	Con
RFA	Single needle possible. Coagulative properties. Can be done under deep sedation, general anesthesia not mandatory. Quicker than CA. Good evidence available	Heat-sink effect. No real-time monitoring of ablation zone. Limited size of ablation zone. Risk for urothelial damage
Cryoablation	Real-time monitoring of ablation zone possible. Large ablation size possible. Can be done under deep sedation, general anesthesia not mandatory. Good evidence available	Heat-sink effect. Multiple needles often required. Risk for bleeding. More time-consuming than RFA and MWA
MWA	Quicker than RFA and CA. Higher temperatures than RFA. Coagulative properties. Can be done under deep sedation, general anesthesia not mandatory	No real-time monitoring of ablation zone. Risk for urothelial damage. Limited evidence available
IRE	Direct post-procedural monitoring possible. No injury to surrounding structures. Well suited for centrally located tumors	General anesthesia with muscle relaxation and EKG triggering required. Multiple parallel placed needles required. More time-consuming than CA, RFA and MWA. No sound evidence available
SABR	Truly non-invasive. No anesthesia required. No size limit	Renal function impairment. No sound evidence available