Journal Article Review Epublish
PubMed: 42512924 DOI: 10.3390/medicina62071382
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation (EUS-RFA): Are We Getting Evidence-Based Results? A Systematic Review According to the Levels of Evidence.
Medicina (Kaunas) 62(7)
Authors: Andrea Lisotti, Graziella Masciangelo, Matteo Tacelli, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Khanh Do-Cong Pham, Tawfik Khoury, Pietro Fusaroli, Bertrand Napoléon
Affiliations
- Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, 40026 Imola, Italy.
- IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
- Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy.
- Department of Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, N-5021 Bergen, Norway.
- Department of Gastroenterology, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya 22100, Israel.
- Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University, 8 Henrietta Szold St, Safed 13115, Israel.
- Endoscopy Unit, Hôpital Privé Jean Mermoz, 69008 Lyon, France.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is an emerging minimally invasive therapeutic option for pancreatic and selected extra-pancreatic lesions. However, its clinical adoption is limited by heterogeneous indications, non-standardized techniques, and variable quality of evidence. This systematic review assessed the published literature on EUS-RFA and classified available evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify peer-reviewed studies reporting clinical or translational data on EUS-RFA. Studies were grouped by indication, including pancreatic insulinoma, non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and other pancreatic cystic neoplasms, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pancreatic metastases, adrenal adenoma, and miscellaneous indications. Each study was categorized according to Oxford level of evidence based on study design. Results: Thirty-seven records were included in the final evidence map, comprising 36 clinical studies classifiable according to Oxford levels of evidence and one translational record not classifiable as clinical therapeutic evidence. Among the 36 clinically classifiable studies, one provided Level 1b evidence, consisting of a randomized trial evaluating EUS-guided celiac ganglion RFA for pancreatic cancer-related pain palliation, and three provided Level 2b evidence, including non-randomized comparative cohorts in pancreatic insulinoma and unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Most clinically classifiable studies were Level 4 evidence (32/36), mainly uncontrolled prospective or retrospective cohorts and case series. One preclinical/translational study was not classifiable within clinical therapeutic evidence levels. Pancreatic insulinoma was the most evidence-supported tumor-ablation indication, with comparative data suggesting efficacy comparable to surgery and a more favorable safety profile. For non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, branch-duct IPMN, renal cell carcinoma pancreatic metastases, and adrenal adenomas, available data suggest feasibility and encouraging short-term outcomes but remain predominantly non-comparative. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, EUS-RFA remains investigational as an adjunct to systemic therapy. Conclusions: EUS-RFA is a promising therapeutic platform, but evidence remains highly indication-dependent and dominated by low-level observational studies. Standardized protocols, indication-specific outcomes, prospective registries, and comparative trials are needed.
MeSH
Cells, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Adenocarcinoma, Insulinoma, Neoplasm Metastasis, Radiofrequency Ablation, Adenoma, Records, Therapeutics