Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41630838›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026

Clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation therapies for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kazuyuki Matsumoto, Yuki Fujii, Daisuke Uchida, Yasuto Takeuchi, Toshiharu Mitsuhashi, Motoyuki Otsuka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Methodology Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound Radiofrequency Ablation (EUS-RFA) for Pancreatic Neoplasms: Results From an International Survey.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Kazuyuki MatsumotoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Okayama 700-8558, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5102-7452
Yuki FujiiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4231-9955
Daisuke UchidaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2809-2707
Yasuto TakeuchiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Toshiharu MitsuhashiCenter for Innovative Clinical Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Motoyuki OtsukaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are rare; however, they are increasingly being detected. Although surgical resection remains the standard treatment, its invasiveness has prompted interest in less invasive alternatives, particularly for small non-functional pNETs (NF-pNETs) and insulinomas. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided ethanol injection (EUS-EI) and radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) for pNETs. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: A literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar was conducted (April 2005-April 2025). Studies were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes of EUS-EI or EUS-RFA in adult patients with insulinomas or NF-pNETs. The primary endpoints were clinical success (short-term symptom resolution or radiological response) and adverse event (AE) rates. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. For insulinomas, the pooled clinical success rate was 77% (95% confidence interval (CI), 59-88) for EUS-EI and 95% (95% CI, 89-97) for EUS-RFA. The pooled incidence of total AEs was 32% (95% CI, 17-51) for EUS-EI and 25% (95% CI, 15-39) for EUS-RFA. For NF-pNETs, the pooled clinical success rates were 76% (95% CI, 54-90) for EUS-EI and 85% (95% CI, 74-92) for EUS-RFA, and the pooled incidence of total AEs was 27% (95% CI, 20-35) and 26% (95% CI, 17-38), respectively. The most common moderate or severe AEs were pancreatitis in 12 patients (7.6%) after EUS-EI, and pancreatic fluid collection in 4 patients (1.9%) and pancreatic duct stricture in 3 patients (1.4%) after EUS-RFA. One fatal case occurred in a 97-year-old patient following EUS-RFA. Conclusion: Both EUS-EI and EUS-RFA are effective, relatively safe, and minimally invasive treatment options for pNETs. However, severe AE can occur, and careful patient selection and treatment indication are essential. Trial registration: Not registered.

Indexed as

ablation techniquesendoscopic ultrasonographyethanolpancreatic neuroendocrine tumorsradiofrequency ablation

Identifiers

PMID41630838
PMCPMC12861373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.