4.5 Review

Radiofrequency ablation for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

期刊

HPB
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 119-123

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12097

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)] [017.007.133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMedian survival in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer lies in the range of 9-15months. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) may prolong survival, but data on its safety and efficacy are scarce. MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library with the syntax (radiofrequency OR RFA) AND (pancreas OR pancreatic)' for studies published until 1 January 2012. In addition, a search of the proceedings of conferences on pancreatic disease that took place during 2009-2011 was performed. Studies with fewer than five patients were excluded as they were considered to be case reports. The primary endpoint was survival. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality. ResultsFive studies involving a total of 158 patients with pancreatic cancer treated with RFA fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These studies reported median survival after RFA of 3-33months, morbidity related to RFA of 4-37%, mortality of 0-19% and overall morbidity of 10-43%. Pooling of data was not appropriate as the study populations and reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Crucial safety aspects included ensuring a maximum RFA tip temperature of <90 degrees C and ensuring minimum distances between the RFA probe and surrounding structures. ConclusionsRadiofrequency ablation seems to be feasible and safe when it is used with the correct temperature and at an appropriate distance from vital structures. It appears to have a positive impact on survival. Multicentre randomized trials are necessary to determine the true effect size of RFA and to minimize the impacts of selection and publication biases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据