Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26449559›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2016

MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for evaluation of focal irreversible electroporation treatment: results from a phase I-II study in patients undergoing IRE followed by radical prostatectomy.

Willemien van den Bos, D M de Bruin, A van Randen, M R W Engelbrecht, A W Postema, B G Muller, I M Varkarakis, A Skolarikos, C D Savci-Heijink, R R Jurhill and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02828709 (The Safety and Feasibility of Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Small Renal Masses), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02828709 phase2unknown statusnot on this map

The Safety and Feasibility of Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Small Renal Masses

TypeinterventionalSponsorDr. Prof. M.P. Laguna PesRan2016 to 2019Enrolled20ConditionsKidney CancerArmsIrreversible Electroporation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. MRI and CT in the follow-up after irreversible electroporation of small renal masses.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2021
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Surveillance after Focal Therapy - a Comprehensive Review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Willemien van den BosDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.vandenbos@amc.uva.nl.
D M de BruinDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A van RandenDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M R W EngelbrechtDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A W PostemaDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B G MullerDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
I M Varkarakis2nd Department of Urology, University of Athens, Sismanoglio General Hospital, 1 Sismanogliou Street, 151 26, Marousi, Greece.
A Skolarikos2nd Department of Urology, University of Athens, Sismanoglio General Hospital, 1 Sismanogliou Street, 151 26, Marousi, Greece.
C D Savci-HeijinkDepartment of Pathology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R R JurhillDepartment of Pathology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P J ZondervanDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M P Laguna PesDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H WijkstraDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T M de ReijkeDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J J M C H de la RosetteDepartment of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRSismanoglio General Hospital · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIrreversible electroporation (IRE) is an ablative therapy with a low side-effect profile in prostate cancer. The objective was: 1) To compare the volumetric IRE ablation zone on grey-scale transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with histopathology findings; 2) To determine a reliable imaging modality to visualize the IRE ablation effects accurately.

methodsA prospective phase I-II study was performed in 16 patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy (RP). IRE of the prostate was performed 4 weeks before RP. Prior to, and 4 weeks after the IRE treatment, imaging was performed by TRUS, CEUS, and mpMRI. 3D-analysis of the ablation volumes on imaging and on H&E-stained whole-mount sections was performed. The volumes were compared and the correlation was calculated.

resultsEvaluation of the imaging demonstrated that with T2-weighted MRI, dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI, and CEUS, effects of IRE are visible. T2MRI and CEUS closely match the volumes on histopathology (Pearson correlation r = 0.88 resp. 0.80). However, IRE is not visible with TRUS.

conclusionsmpMRI and CEUS are appropriate for assessing IRE effects and are the most feasible imaging modalities to visualize IRE ablation zone. The imaging is concordant with results of histopathological examination. KEY POINTS: • mpMRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound are appropriate imaging modalities for assessing IRE effects • mpMRI and CEUS are the most feasible imaging modalities to visualize IRE ablation zone • The imaging is concordant with results of histopathological examination after IRE • Grey-scale US is insufficient for assessing IRE ablations.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaAdultAgedElectroporationHumansImage EnhancementMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeUltrasonographyContrast MediaFocal therapyImagingIREIrreversible electroporationProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID26449559
PMCPMC4902838
OpenAlexW1935778066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.