Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) occurs in 2% to 25% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who do not undergo surgical intervention. Over the past decade, duodenal self-expandable metal stent (D-SEMS) has been widely used for MGOO and has demonstrated high technical (89.1% to 100%) and clinical (85.7% to 94.3%) success rates.Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a promising alternative with comparable technical (89.3% to 98.9%) and clinical (89.0% to 100%) success rates. Notably, EUS-GE reduces the 6-month reintervention rate by approximately 25% relative to D-SEMS in patients with MGOO, thus making it an increasingly popular treatment option. Despite its advantages, EUS-GE may not be suitable for patients with massive ascites, extensive peritoneal carcinomatosis, gastric linitis plastica, or an inaccessible small bowel. Moreover, EUSGE requires a longer procedure time and incurs higher overall costs, even when considering the increased reintervention rate associated with D-SEMS. While the risk of adverse events is similar between EUS-GE and D-SEMS, EUS-GE requires a higher level of operator expertise to ensure safety and may also require deeper levels of anesthesia than D-SEMS. Advancements in cancer therapy have prolonged survival in PDAC patients, but most do not require reintervention for MGOO, unlike those with other malignancies. Thus, EUS-GE may be suitable for patients with a longer life span who are willing to undergo deep anesthesia at a high-volume center with an experienced specialist. Given these considerations, more comprehensive studies are needed before EUS-GE can be recommended as a standard replacement for D-SEMS in the treatment of MGOO.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are evidenced-based treatments for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who fail to respond to standard first-line therapies. However, although various TMS protocols have been proven to be clinically effective, the response rate varies across clinical applications due to the heterogeneity of real-world psychiatric comorbidities, such as generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, or substance use disorder, which are often observed in patients with MDD. Therefore, individualized treatment approaches are important to increase treatment response by assigning a given patient to the most optimal TMS treatment protocol based on his or her individual profile. This literature review summarizes different rTMS or TBS protocols that have been applied in researches investigating MDD patients with certain psychiatric comorbidities and discusses biomarkers that may be used to predict rTMS treatment response. Furthermore, we highlight the need for the validation of neuroimaging and electrophysiological biomarkers associated with rTMS treatment responses. Finally, we discuss on which directions future efforts should focus for developing the personalization of the treatment of depression with rTMS or iTBS.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are evidenced-based treatments for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who fail to respond to standard first-line therapies. However, although various TMS protocols have been proven to be clinically effective, the response rate varies across clinical applications due to the heterogeneity of real-world psychiatric comorbidities, such as generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, or substance use disorder, which are often observed in patients with MDD. Therefore, individualized treatment approaches are important to increase treatment response by assigning a given patient to the most optimal TMS treatment protocol based on his or her individual profile. This literature review summarizes different rTMS or TBS protocols that have been applied in researches investigating MDD patients with certain psychiatric comorbidities and discusses biomarkers that may be used to predict rTMS treatment response. Furthermore, we highlight the need for the validation of neuroimaging and electrophysiological biomarkers associated with rTMS treatment responses. Finally, we discuss on which directions future efforts should focus for developing the personalization of the treatment of depression with rTMS or iTBS.