Use of Irreversible Electroporation in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: A Multi-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of 10%. Irreversible electroporation (IRE), a non-thermal ablative technique, may improve outcomes in locally advanced (LAPC) and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). This multi-center retrospective study aims to evaluate postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, and survival following IRE. METHODS: 35 pancreatic cancer patients were treated with IRE between 2015 and 2023 across three Belgian hospitals. IRE was performed for tumor destruction in unresectable LAPC (n = 13) (IRE-LAPC) and for margin accentuation during resection in BRPC (n = 22) (IRE-MA). Primary endpoints were 90-day mortality, complications, and survival (only 33 patients included); secondary endpoints included metastases, local recurrence, and R0-resection rates. RESULTS: Postoperative complications occurred in 23.1% (IRE-LAPC) and 68.2% (IRE-MA) of patients. Overall survival at 24 months was 27.3% (IRE-LAPC) and 27.3% (IRE-MA). Median survival time was 12.7 months (IRE-LAPC) and 13.3 months (IRE-MA). Six patients (17.1%) died within 90 days. Metastasis occurred in 51.5% of patients after a median time of 9.8 months. Local recurrence was seen in 24.2% of patients after a median time of 7.5 months. R0 resection was achieved in 63.6% (IRE-MA). DISCUSSION: IRE for margin accentuation in BRPC is associated with relatively high morbidity and mortality rates and cannot be considered beneficial. In unresectable LAPC, IRE appears relatively safe for local disease control. Further research should clarify patient selection and optimize its therapeutic role.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".