ArticleJournal of ultrasound2015
Sonochemotherapy of breast adenocarcinoma: an experimental in vivo model.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of contrast-enhanced ultrasound treatment on neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.Theranostics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBecause the cytotoxic potential of hydrophilic drugs like bleomycin (BLM) is restricted by its low membrane permeability, the application of low-intensity ultrasound (US) on growing tumor cells enhances intracellular delivery of BLM after intratumoral administration, thereby potentiating its cytotoxicity. In the present study, the in vivo cell membrane permeability enhancement with US (1 MHz, 2, 5, and 10 min, ISPTA = 2 W/cm(2)) is compared with the murine model of breast adenocarcinoma in BALB/c mice.
methodsTumor induction was performed through a homograft surgery procedure. Mice were anesthetized before putting them in sonication situations. Sonications were done in an aquarium. Seven groups of the tumor-bearing mice, each consisting of eight mice, were sonicated without or after intratumoral injection of 0.1 ml BLM at different exposure times. The tumor volume was evaluated to assess the growth process by use of a digital caliper.
resultsThe results show that the BLM control group has a significant difference with BLM plus 10 min US on day 2 (p < 0.05). There is a significant difference between 2- and 10-min sonication on days 8 and 10 also. The difference between the Only US group and the other groups except Sham US was significant too (p < 0.05). Significant differences were seen only between the BLM plus US groups with Sham US and Only US control groups.
conclusionIt has been concluded that for significant permeabilization of the cell membrane, sonication time for more than 10 min is required. Significant difference between the Only US and other groups indicates that US has a promoting effect on cell division procedure, in spite of the no-carcinogen effect of the US.
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.