ReviewGut and liver2026
Is It Time to Replace the Duodenal Self-Expandable Metal Stent with Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Gastroenterostomy for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer?
Review in Gut and liver, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) occurs in 2% to 25% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who do not undergo surgical intervention. Over the past decade, duodenal self-expandable metal stent (D-SEMS) has been widely used for MGOO and has demonstrated high technical (89.1% to 100%) and clinical (85.7% to 94.3%) success rates. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a promising alternative with comparable technical (89.3% to 98.9%) and clinical (89.0% to 100%) success rates. Notably, EUS-GE reduces the 6-month reintervention rate by approximately 25% relative to D-SEMS in patients with MGOO, thus making it an increasingly popular treatment option. Despite its advantages, EUS-GE may not be suitable for patients with massive ascites, extensive peritoneal carcinomatosis, gastric linitis plastica, or an inaccessible small bowel. Moreover, EUS-GE requires a longer procedure time and incurs higher overall costs, even when considering the increased reintervention rate associated with D-SEMS. While the risk of adverse events is similar between EUS-GE and D-SEMS, EUS-GE requires a higher level of operator expertise to ensure safety and may also require deeper levels of anesthesia than D-SEMS. Advancements in cancer therapy have prolonged survival in PDAC patients, but most do not require reintervention for MGOO, unlike those with other malignancies. Thus, EUS-GE may be suitable for patients with a longer life span who are willing to undergo deep anesthesia at a high-volume center with an experienced specialist. Given these considerations, more comprehensive studies are needed before EUS-GE can be recommended as a standard replacement for D-SEMS in the treatment of MGOO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.