A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus plastic stent placement versus stent placement alone for unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. | LitMetric

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus plastic stent placement versus stent placement alone for unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Gastrointest Endosc

Department of Gastroenterology, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Yangpu District, Shanghai, China; Department of Gastroenterology, Third Affiliated Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Jiading District, Shanghai, China.

Published: July 2021

Background And Aims: We sought to compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stent placement alone in patients with unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer (EBC).

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or ampullary cancer who were unsuitable for surgery were recruited from 3 tertiary centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to RFA plus plastic stent placement (RFA group) or plastic stent placement alone (stent placement alone group) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups underwent 2 scheduled interventions with an interval of approximately 3 months. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Results: Altogether, 174 participants completed the 2 index endoscopic interventions. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted between the 2 groups. The median OS was significantly higher in the RFA group (14.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .488; 95% confidence interval, .351-.678; P < .001). A survival benefit was also shown in patients with CCA (13.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .546; 95% confidence interval, .386-.771; P < .001). However, no significant between-group differences were found in jaundice control or stent patency duration. The postprocedural Karnofsky performance scores were significantly higher in the RFA group until 9 months (all P < .001). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups (27.6% vs 19.5%, P = .211), except for acute cholecystitis, which was more frequently observed in the RFA group (9 vs 0, P = .003).

Conclusions: Compared with stent placement alone, additional RFA may improve OS and quality of life of patients with inoperable primary EBC who do not undergo systemic treatments. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01844245.).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.016DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

stent placement
28
rfa group
16
plastic stent
12
p < 001
12
endoscopic radiofrequency
8
radiofrequency ablation
8
stent
8
unresectable extrahepatic
8
extrahepatic biliary
8
biliary cancer
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!