EUS-guided Radiofrequency Ablation (EUS-RFA) of Solid Pancreatic Neoplasm Using an 18-gauge Needle Electrode: Feasibility, Safety, and Technical Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is a promising technique for the treatment of pancreatic neoplasm. We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and technical success of pancreatic EUS-RFA performed in a single center. METHODS: 9 consecutive patients (8 with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 1 with renal cancer metastasis) were referred for EUS-RFA between November 2016 and July 2017. EUS-RFA was performed using 18-gauge internally cooled electrode with a 5 or 10 mm exposed tip. Feasibility, technical success or early and late adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: One patient was excluded because of a large necrotic portion. EUS-RFA was feasible in all the other 8 (100%) cases. An ablated area inside the tumor was achieved in all treated patients. No early or late major adverse event was observed after a mean follow-up of 6 months. Three patients experienced mild post-procedural abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RFA seems a feasible, safe, and effective procedure for pancreatic neoplasms. Its role in the treatment and management of pancreatic masses must be further investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".