ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2016
Feasibility of a Modified Biopsy Needle for Irreversible Electroporation Ablation and Periprocedural Tissue Sampling.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo test the feasibility of modified biopsy needles as probes for irreversible electroporation ablation and periprocedural biopsy.
methodsCore biopsy needles of 16-G/9-cm were customized to serve as experimental ablation probes. Computed tomography-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation was performed in in vivo porcine kidneys with pairs of experimental (n = 10) or standard probes (n = 10) using a single parameter set (1667 V/cm, ninety 100 µs pulses). Two biopsy samples were taken immediately following ablation using the experimental probes (n = 20). Ablation outcomes were compared using computed tomography, simulation, and histology. Biopsy and necropsy histology were compared.
resultsSimulation-suggested ablations with experimental probes were smaller than that with standard electrodes (455.23 vs 543.16 mm
conclusionsA combined probe for irreversible electroporation ablation and periprocedural tissue sampling from the ablation zone is feasible. Ablation outcomes are comparable to those of standard electrodes.
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.