4.7 Review

Systematic Review of Surgical and Percutaneous Irreversible Electroporation in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1657-1668

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07261-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe aim of the present systematic review was to collect, analyze, and critically evaluate the role of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Furthermore, we sought to analyze the different approaches of IRE (open, laparoscopic, and percutaneous) and assess the relative outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using the MEDLINE (1966-2018), Scopus (2004-2018), Google Scholar (2004-2018) and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, eligible articles published upto August 2018 were included. The following keywords were applied: irreversible electroporation', IRE', LAPC', unresectable pancreatic cancer', palliative treatment', locally advanced pancreatic cancer', ablation' and ablative treatment'.ResultsIRE for LAPC was feasible and safe; however, it was associated with morbidity in approximately one in three patients, some of whom experienced serious complications, particularly after surgical IRE. In addition, while mortality following IRE was uncommon, it did occur in 2% of patients. While some studies suggested a survival benefit, others failed to note an improvement in long-term outcomes following IRE compared with other therapies.ConclusionsProviders and patients need to be aware of the potential morbidity and mortality associated with IRE. In addition, based on the literature to date, the survival benefit of IRE for LAPC remains to be elucidated. Conclusive and definitive evidence to support a survival benefit of IRE does not currently exist. Future multicenter, randomized, prospective trials are needed to clarify the role of IRE in patients with LAPC.

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

4.7
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