CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(12): E1759-E1764
DOI: 10.1055/a-1261-9605
Review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review of the literature

Nicola Imperatore
1   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, AORN A Cardarelli, Naples, Italy
2   Gastroenterology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, School of Medicine Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy
,
Germana de Nucci
3   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, ASST Rhodense, Garbagnate Milanese, Milan, Italy
,
Enzo Domenico Mandelli
3   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, ASST Rhodense, Garbagnate Milanese, Milan, Italy
,
Annalisa de Leone
1   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, AORN A Cardarelli, Naples, Italy
,
Francesco Paolo Zito
1   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, AORN A Cardarelli, Naples, Italy
,
Giovanni Lombardi
1   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, AORN A Cardarelli, Naples, Italy
,
Gianpiero Manes
3   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, ASST Rhodense, Garbagnate Milanese, Milan, Italy
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background and study aims Surgery is the mainstay therapy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs), but it is associated with significant adverse events (AEs). In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been described for treating P-NETs. We performed a systematic literature review aimed at exploring the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of EUS-RFA in treatment of P-NETs.

Methods The literature review was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS to identify all case reports of EUS-RFA for treatment of P-NETs.

Results Sixyt-one patients (males 49.2 %, mean age 64.5 years) and 73 tumors (mean size 16 mm, insulinomas 30.1 %) treated with EUS-RFA were included from 12 studies. The overall effectiveness of EUS-RFA was 96 % (75 % – 100 %) without differences between functional vs. non-functional P-NETs (P = 0.3) and without relevant issues about safety (mild AEs 13.7 %). While tumor location was not predictive for incomplete/non-response to EUS-RFA, greater tumor dimensions predicted treatment failure (21.8 ± 4.71 mm in the non-response group vs 15.07 ± 7.34 mm in the response group, P = 0.048). At ROC analysis, a P-NET size cut-off value ≤18 mm predicted response to treatment, with a sensitivity of 80 % (95 % CI 28.4 % – 99.5 %), a specificity of 78.6 % (95 % CI 63.2 % – 89.7 %), a positive predictive value of 97.1 % (95 % CI 84.7 % – 99.9 %) and a negative predictive value of 30.8 % (95 % CI 9.1 % – 61.4 %), with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95 % CI 0.67 – 0.95).

Conclusions EUS-RFA is safe and effective for treating P-NETs. It may be reasonable to consider EUS-RFA for small P-NETs, irrespective of the functional status.



Publication History

Received: 05 June 2020

Accepted: 18 August 2020

Article published online:
17 November 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Fitzgerald TL, Hickner ZJ, Schmitz M. et al. Changing incidence of pancreatic neoplasms: a 16-year review of statewide tumor registry. Pancreas 2008; 37: 134-138
  • 2 Lee DW, Kim MK, Kim HC. Diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Endosc 2017; 50: 537-545
  • 3 Sachs T, Pratt WB, Callery MP. et al. The incidental asymptomatic pancreatic lesion: nuisance or treat?. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13: 405-415
  • 4 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. PRISMA-P Group. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1
  • 5 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
  • 6 Rossi S, Viera FT, Ghittoni G. et al. Radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a pilot study of feasibility, efficacy, and safety. Pancreas 2014; 43: 938-945
  • 7 Armellini E, Crinò SF, Ballarè M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Endoscopy 2015; 47: E600-E601
  • 8 Pai M, Habib N, Senturk H. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation, for pancreatic cystic neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumors. World J Gastrointest Surg 2015; 7: 52-59
  • 9 Lakhtakia S, Ramchandani M, Galasso D. et al. EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation for management of pancreatic insulinoma by using a novel needle electrode (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 234-239
  • 10 Waung JA, Todd JF, Keane MG. et al. Successful management of a sporadic pancreatic insulinoma by endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation. Endoscopy 2016; 48 (Suppl. 01) E144-E145
  • 11 Bas-Cutrina F, Bargalló D, Gornals JB. Small pancreatic insulinoma: Successful endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in a single session using a 22-G fine needle. Dig Endosc 2017; 29: 636-638
  • 12 Choi JH, Seo DW, Song TJ. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for management of benign solid pancreatic tumors. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1099-1104
  • 13 Thosani N, Sharma NR, Raijman I. et al. 483 Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) in the treatment of pancreatic lesions: a multi-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB84
  • 14 Gueneau de Mussy P, Lamine F, Godat S. et al. A case of benign insulinoma successfully treated with endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation. Endocrine Abstr 2018; 56: 121
  • 15 Barthet M, Giovannini M, Lesavre N. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 836-842
  • 16 Oleinikov K, Dancour A, Epshtein J. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided radiofrequency ablation: a new therapeutic approach for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019; 104: 2637-2647
  • 17 de Nucci G, Imperatore N, Mandelli ED. et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a case series. Endosc Int Open 2020; 08: E1-E5
  • 18 Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A. et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3063-3072
  • 19 Halfdanarson TR, Rubin J, Farnell MB. et al. Pancreatic endocrine neoplasms: epidemiology and prognosis of pancreatic endocrine tumors. Endocr Relat Cancer 2008; 15: 409-427
  • 20 Hallet J, Law CH, Cukier M. et al. Exploring the rising incidence of neuroendocrine tumors: a population-based analysis of epidemiology, metastatic presentation, and outcomes. Cancer 2015; 121: 589-597
  • 21 Hill JS, McPhee JT, McDade TP. et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: the impact of surgical resection on survival. Cancer 2009; 115: 741-751
  • 22 Jilesen AP, van Eijck CH, inʼt Hof KH. et al. Postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality and 5-year survival after surgical resection for patients with a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a systematic review. World J Surg 2016; 40: 729-748
  • 23 Belfiori G, Wiese D, Partelli S. et al. Minimally invasive versus open treatment for benign sporadic insulinoma comparison of short-term and long-term outcomes. World J Surg 2018; 42: 3223-3230
  • 24 Barret M, Leblanc S, Rouquette A. et al. EUS-guided pancreatic radiofrequency ablation: preclinical comparison of two currently available devices in a pig model. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E138-E143
  • 25 Larghi A, Rizzatti G, Rimbaş M. et al. EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation as an alternative to surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Who should we treat?. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 220-226