Endoscopic ultrasound role in pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment: A review focusing on technical success, safety and efficacy

Table 2 Human studies reporting endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation therapies

Ref.	Study design	Cancer stage	EUS-guided intervention	Patients No.	Technical success (%)	Median overall survival (mo)	Pain palliation (patients %)	Serious adverse events, n
Facciorusso et al[31], 2017	Prospective	III (n = 50); IV (n = 15)	Ethanol ablation	65	100	8.3	90.7 at week 2	0
Song et al[35], 2016	Prospective	III (n = 4); IV (n = 2)	RFA	6	100	-1	Not reported	0
Crinò et al[36], 2018	Prospective	III (n = 8)	RFA	8	100	-1	Not reported	0
Scopelliti et al[37], 2018	Prospective	III (n = 10)	RFA	10	100	-1	Not reported	0
Paiella et al[38], 2018	Retrospective	Not reported	RFA	30	100	15	Not reported	0
Bang et al[39], 2019	Prospective	II (n = 2); III (n = 3); IV (n = 7)	RFA	12	100	Not reported	Significant	0
Arcidiacono et al[41], 2012	Prospective	III (n = 22)	HCA	22	72.8	6	Not reported	12
DeWitt et al[45], 2019	Prospective	III (n = 12)	PDA	12	100	11.5	Not reported	0
Di Matteo et al[46], 2018	Prospective	III (n = 9)	Laser ablation	9	100	7.4	Not reported	0

¹Feasibility studies not aimed to assess impact on overall survival.

²Minor bleeding in duodenal lumen successfully stopped by hemoclips (1 patient). RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; HCA: Hybrid cryothermal ablation; PDA: Photodynamic ablation; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound.