ReviewClinical endoscopy2026
Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation for malignant biliary obstruction: clinical benefits, limitations, and future directions.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 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
Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (EB-RFA) is an adjunctive local therapy performed during endoscopic biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction. EB-RFA was originally introduced to reduce the intraductal tumor burden and maintain biliary drainage, and has been investigated for its potential survival benefits, especially for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). However, the available evidence shows heterogeneity, and recent large trials have reported neutral results. This review summarizes the current evidence regarding the clinical benefits and limitations of EB-RFA, focusing on its effects on survival and stent patency. Existing data suggest that the survival benefit associated with EB-RFA is greater in patients with eCCA without distant metastasis than in those with metastatic disease. Evidence of its efficacy in improving stent patency is inconsistent based on the findings of randomized trials. However, observational studies, particularly those involving uncovered self-expandable metal stents, have reported its benefits. EB-RFA may also be considered for reintervention in cases involving metal stents occluded due to tumor ingrowth; however, clinical success may be suboptimal due to imperfect tissue contact and technical factors. Future studies with standardized protocols and predefined subgroup analyses are required to define optimal candidates and clinically meaningful endpoints, especially in the context of evolving systemic therapy.
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.