Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar 7;20(9):2267-78.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2267.

Systematic review of novel ablative methods in locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Affiliations

Systematic review of novel ablative methods in locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Margaret G Keane et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer with or without metastatic disease is associated with a very poor prognosis. Current standard therapy is limited to chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Few regimens have been shown to have a substantial survival advantage and novel treatment strategies are urgently needed. Thermal and laser based ablative techniques are widely used in many solid organ malignancies. Initial studies in the pancreas were associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which limited widespread adoption. Modifications to the various applications, in particular combining the techniques with high quality imaging such as computed tomography and intraoperative or endoscopic ultrasound has enabled real time treatment monitoring and significant improvements in safety. We conducted a systematic review of the literature up to October 2013. Initial studies suggest that ablative therapies may confer an additional survival benefit over best supportive care but randomised studies are required to validate these findings.

Keywords: Cryoablation; High frequency focused ultrasound; Irreversible electroporation; Microwave ablation; Pancreatic cancer; Photodynamic therapy; Radiofrequency ablation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Systematic review schema.

References

    1. Cancer Research UK. Pancreatic cancer statistics 2010. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/pancreas.
    1. Cunningham D, Chau I, Stocken DD, Valle JW, Smith D, Steward W, Harper PG, Dunn J, Tudur-Smith C, West J, et al. Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5513–5518. - PubMed
    1. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouché O, Guimbaud R, Bécouarn Y, Adenis A, Raoul JL, Gourgou-Bourgade S, de la Fouchardière C, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–1825. - PubMed
    1. VonHoff DD, Ervin TJ, Arena FP, Chiorean EG, Infante JR, Moore MJ, Seay TE, Tjulandin S, Ma WW, Saleh MN, et al. Randomized phase III study of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (MPACT) J Clin Oncol. 2013;30 supp 34:abstr LBA148.
    1. Gillen S, Schuster T, Friess H, Kleeff J. Palliative resections versus palliative bypass procedures in pancreatic cancer--a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2012;203:496–502. - PubMed

Publication types