Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38993594›Full record

ReviewSeminars in interventional radiology2024

Consensus Guidelines of Irreversible Electroporation for Pancreatic Tumors: Protocol Standardization Using the Modified Delphi Technique.

Danielle J W Vos, Alette H Ruarus, Florentine E F Timmer, Bart Geboers, Sandeep Bagla, Giuseppe Belfiore, Marc G Besselink, Edward Leen, Robert C G Martin Ii, Govindarjan Narayanan and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Real-world strategies for pulsed field ablation using a variable-loop circular catheter: a compendium of best practices from early adopters.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Danielle J W VosDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alette H RuarusDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Florentine E F TimmerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bart GeboersDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sandeep BaglaVascular Institute of Virginia, Woodbridge, Virginia.
Giuseppe BelfioreDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, S. Anna-S. Sebastiano Hospital, Caserta, Italy.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Edward LeenDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robert C G Martin IiDepartment of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.
Govindarjan NarayananDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Florida.
Anders NilssonDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Salvatore PaiellaDepartment of General and Pancreatic Surgery, University of Verona Hospital Trust, G. B. Rossi Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Joshua L WeintraubDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Philipp WiggermannDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Regensburg, Germany.
Hester J SchefferDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn R MeijerinkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since no uniform treatment protocol for pancreatic irreversible electroporation (IRE) exists, the heterogeneity throughout literature complicates the comparison of results. To reach agreement among experts, a consensus study was performed. Eleven experts, recruited according to predefined criteria regarding previous IRE publications, participated anonymously in three rounds of questionnaires according to a modified Delphi technique. Consensus was defined as having reached ≥80% agreement. Response rates were 100, 64, and 64% in rounds 1 to 3, respectively; consensus was reached in 93%. Pancreatic IRE should be considered for stage III pancreatic cancer and inoperable recurrent disease after previous local treatment. Absolute contraindications are ventricular arrhythmias, implantable stimulation devices, congestive heart failure NYHA class 4, and severe ascites. The inter-electrode distance should be 10 to 20 mm and the exposure length should be 15 mm. After 10 test pulses, 90 treatment pulses of 1,500 V/cm should be delivered continuously, with a 90-µs pulse length. The first postprocedural contrast-enhanced computed tomography should take place 1 month post-IRE, and then every 3 months. This article provides expert recommendations regarding patient selection, procedure, and follow-up for IRE treatment in pancreatic malignancies through a modified Delphi consensus study. Future studies should define the maximum tumor diameter, response evaluation criteria, and the optimal number of preoperative FOLFIRINOX cycles.

Indexed as

interventional radiologyirreversible electroporationmodified Delphi techniquepancreatic tumors

Identifiers

PMID38993594
PMCPMC11236456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.