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

Table 6 Technical considerations and imaging studies used in follow-up among patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Ref.	Number of patients/sessions	Power setting in Watts	RFA application number in all sessions	Imaging study used in radiological follow-up
Rossi et al[10]	1/1	10-15	1	CECT or MRI
Armellini et al[11]	1/1	NR	2	CT and CE-EUS
Lakhtakia et al[12]	3/3	50	9	CECT (1 patient), CECT and EUS (2 patients)
Waung et al[21]	1/3	10	25	CT and gallium dotatate positron emission tomography
Bas-Cutrina et al[22]	1/1	10	3	NR
Pai et al[23]	2/3	20	10	Cross sectional imaging not stated which
Barthet et al[13]	12/12	50	NR	CT and EUS
Choi et al[25]	8/14	50	65	CECT and CE-EUS
de Nucci et al[26]	10/10	20	23	CT
Oleinikov et al[14]	18/18	50	3-10 in each EUS-RFA session	CECT (9 patients), NA (5 patients), CECT and somatostatin receptor imaging (3 patients)
Rossi et al[30]	3/4	30	14	EUS (1 patient), MRI (1 patient), refused follow-up (1 patient)
Chang et al[27]	1/1	50	2	CECT
Kluz et al[28]	1/1	50	3	NR
Furnica et al[29]	4/4	50	1-3 per each EUS-RFA	CT
Marx et al[15]	7/7	50	1-5 for each EUS-RFA session	CE-EUS or MRI
Marx et al[31]	27/31	50	1-5 for each EUS-RFA session	CT or MRI

CE-EUS: Contrast enhanced endoscopic ultrasound; CECT: Contrast enhanced computed tomography; CT: Computed tomography; EUS-RFA: Endoscopic ultrasound-radiofrequency ablation; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; NA: Not available; NR: Nor reported.