Endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic tumors: A critical review focusing on safety, efficacy and controversies

Table 3 Studies reporting endoscopic ultrasound-radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic cystic tumors

Ref.	Type of study	Patients/RFA sessions, n	Type of cyst	Mean size (range) in mm	Worrisome features	Technical success, n (%)	Adverse events, n (%)	Complete/partial resolution, n (%)	Mean follow-up in mo
Pai et al[23]	Prospective	6/6	MCN (4), IPMN (1), MCA (1)	41 (24-70), 35, 20	NR	6 (100)	2 (33.3)1	2 (33.3)/4 (66.7)	6
Choi et al[25]	Prospective	2/2	SPT (2)	21.5 (20-23)	NR	2 (100)	0	1 (50)/1 (50)	13
Barthet et al[13]	Prospective	17/17	MCN (1), IPMN (16)	28 (9-60)	16 (94.1)	17 (100)	1 (5.9)2	11 (64.7)/1 (5.9)	12
Oh et al[36]	Retrospective	13/19	SCN (13)	50 (34-52.5)	NR	13 (100)	1 (5.3)3	0/8 (61.5)	9.2
Pooled data	Prospective: 3. Retrospective: 1	38/44	MCN (5), IPMN (17), MCA (1), SPT (2), SCN (13)	32.1	Unable to pool due to data lacking	38 (100)	4 (9.1)	14 (36.8)/14 (36.8)	10.2

¹Transient abdominal pain (2 patients, mild).

²Fever and pneumoperitoneum with fluid collection and jejunal loop perforation needed surgery (1 patient, severe).

³Transient abdominal pain (1 patient, mild).

IPMN: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; MCA: Microcystic adenoma; MCN: Mucinous cystic neoplasm; NR: Not reported; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; SPT: Solid pseudopapillary tumor; SCN: Serous cystic neoplasm.