Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26617243›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2016

Safety Validation of Repeated Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Using Focused Ultrasound.

Thiele Kobus, Natalia Vykhodtseva, Magdalini Pilatou, Yongzhi Zhang, Nathan McDannold

Abstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The role of focused ultrasound for pediatric brain tumors: current insights and future implications on treatment strategies.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Thiele KobusDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: thiele.kobus@radboudumc.nl.
Natalia VykhodtsevaDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Magdalini PilatouDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Yongzhi ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Nathan McDannoldDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Ultrasound-induced blood-brain/tumor barrier disruption in brain metastasesP01CA174645 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI JOLESZ, FERENC A, MCDANNOLD, NATHAN J. · 2013 to 2017
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA174645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on the brain of multiple sessions of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption using focused ultrasound (FUS) in combination with micro-bubbles over a range of acoustic exposure levels. Six weekly sessions of FUS, using acoustical pressures between 0.66 and 0.80 MPa, were performed under magnetic resonance guidance. The success and degree of BBB disruption was estimated by signal enhancement of post-contrast T1-weighted imaging of the treated area. Histopathological analysis was performed after the last treatment. The consequences of repeated BBB disruption varied from no indications of vascular damage to signs of micro-hemorrhages, macrophage infiltration, micro-scar formations and cystic cavities. The signal enhancement on the contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging had limited value for predicting small-vessel damage. T2-weighted imaging corresponded well with the effects on histopathology and could be used to study treatment effects over time. This study demonstrates that repeated BBB disruption by FUS can be performed with no or limited damage to the brain tissue.

Indexed as

High-Energy Shock WavesAnimalsBlood-Brain BarrierRadiation DosageRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySonicationBlood–brain barrier disruptionFocused ultrasoundHistologic evaluationMagnetic resonance guidanceMultiple sessionsSafety study

Identifiers

PMID26617243
PMCPMC4816071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.