ArticlePloS one2012
7.0-T magnetic resonance imaging characterization of acute blood-brain-barrier disruption achieved with intracranial irreversible electroporation.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Combination of Irreversible Electroporation and Allogenic Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Synergizes Therapeutic Outcomes in a Preclinical Human Pancreatic Cancer Mouse Model.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Pulsed field ablation in medicine: irreversible electroporation and electropermeabilization theory and applications.Radiology and oncology · 2025Review
- Tumor-derived extracellular vesicles disrupt the blood-brain barrier endothelium following high-frequency irreversible electroporation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Breaking barriers: exploring mechanisms behind opening the blood-brain barrier.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2023Review
- Multi-scale multi-physics model of brain interstitial water flux by transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.Journal of neural engineering · 2023Article
- Opening the Blood Brain Barrier with an Electropermanent Magnet System.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Effects of Ultra-Short Pulsed Electric Field Exposure on Glioblastoma Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Advancements in drug delivery methods for the treatment of brain disease.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Review
- Non-Invasive Low Pulsed Electrical Fields for Inducing BBB Disruption in Mice-Feasibility Demonstration.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Cytoskeletal Disruption after Electroporation and Its Significance to Pulsed Electric Field Therapies.Cancers · 2020Review
- Companion animal models of neurological disease.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2020Review
- Transient blood-brain barrier disruption is induced by low pulsed electrical fields in vitro: an analysis of permeability and trans-endothelial electric resistivity.Drug delivery · 2019Article
- Temporal Characterization of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption with High-Frequency Electroporation.Cancers · 2019Article
- Characterization of Ablation Thresholds for 3D-Cultured Patient-Derived Glioma Stem Cells in Response to High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2019Article
- Biological effects of blood-brain barrier disruption using a focused ultrasound.Biomedical engineering letters · 2017Review
- A microfluidic model of the blood-brain barrier to study permeabilization by pulsed electric fields.RSC advances · 2017Article
- A statistical model describing combined irreversible electroporation and electroporation-induced blood-brain barrier disruption.Radiology and oncology · 2016Article
- Electroporation of Brain Endothelial Cells on Chip toward Permeabilizing the Blood-Brain Barrier.Biophysical journal · 2016Article
- Neurosurgical Techniques for Disruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier for Glioblastoma Treatment.Pharmaceutics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) presents a significant obstacle to the delivery of systemically administered chemotherapeutics for the treatment of brain cancer. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is an emerging technology that uses pulsed electric fields for the non-thermal ablation of tumors. We hypothesized that there is a minimal electric field at which BBB disruption occurs surrounding an IRE-induced zone of ablation and that this transient response can be measured using gadolinium (Gd) uptake as a surrogate marker for BBB disruption. The study was performed in a Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) compliant facility and had Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval. IRE ablations were performed in vivo in normal rat brain (n = 21) with 1-mm electrodes (0.45 mm diameter) separated by an edge-to-edge distance of 4 mm. We used an ECM830 pulse generator to deliver ninety 50-μs pulse treatments (0, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 V/cm) at 1 Hz. The effects of applied electric fields and timing of Gd administration (-5, +5, +15, and +30 min) was assessed by systematically characterizing IRE-induced regions of cell death and BBB disruption with 7.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and histopathologic evaluations. Statistical analysis on the effect of applied electric field and Gd timing was conducted via Fit of Least Squares with α = 0.05 and linear regression analysis. The focal nature of IRE treatment was confirmed with 3D MRI reconstructions with linear correlations between volume of ablation and electric field. Our results also demonstrated that IRE is an ablation technique that kills brain tissue in a focal manner depicted by MRI (n = 16) and transiently disrupts the BBB adjacent to the ablated area in a voltage-dependent manner as seen with Evan's Blue (n = 5) and Gd administration.
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.