Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26843248›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2016

Nonthermal ablation of deep brain targets: A simulation study on a large animal model.

Can Barış Top, P Jason White, Nathan J McDannold

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Can Barış TopDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 221 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
P Jason WhiteDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 221 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Nathan J McDannoldDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 221 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

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 CA174645NCI NIH HHS P01CA174645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThermal ablation with transcranial MRI-guided focused ultrasound (FUS) is currently limited to central brain targets because of heating and other beam effects caused by the presence of the skull. Recently, it was shown that it is possible to ablate tissues without depositing thermal energy by driving intravenously administered microbubbles to inertial cavitation using low-duty-cycle burst sonications. A recent study demonstrated that this ablation method could ablate tissue volumes near the skull base in nonhuman primates without thermally damaging the nearby bone. However, blood-brain disruption was observed in the prefocal region, and in some cases, this region contained small areas of tissue damage. The objective of this study was to analyze the experimental model with simulations and to interpret the cause of these effects.

methodsThe authors simulated prior experiments where nonthermal ablation was performed in the brain in anesthetized rhesus macaques using a 220 kHz clinical prototype transcranial MRI-guided FUS system. Low-duty-cycle sonications were applied at deep brain targets with the ultrasound contrast agent Definity. For simulations, a 3D pseudospectral finite difference time domain tool was used. The effects of shear mode conversion, focal steering, skull aberrations, nonlinear propagation, and the presence of skull base on the pressure field were investigated using acoustic and elastic wave propagation models.

resultsThe simulation results were in agreement with the experimental findings in the prefocal region. In the postfocal region, however, side lobes were predicted by the simulations, but no effects were evident in the experiments. The main beam was not affected by the different simulated scenarios except for a shift of about 1 mm in peak position due to skull aberrations. However, the authors observed differences in the volume, amplitude, and distribution of the side lobes. In the experiments, a single element passive cavitation detector was used to measure the inertial cavitation threshold and to determine the pressure amplitude to use for ablation. Simulations of the detector's acoustic field suggest that its maximum sensitivity was in the lower part of the main beam, which may have led to excessive exposure levels in the experiments that may have contributed to damage in the prefocal area.

conclusionsOverall, these results suggest that case-specific full wave simulations before the procedure can be useful to predict the focal and the prefocal side lobes and the extent of the resulting bioeffects produced by nonthermal ablation. Such simulations can also be used to optimally position passive cavitation detectors. The disagreement between the simulations and the experiments in the postfocal region may have been due to shielding of the ultrasound field due to microbubble activity in the focal region. Future efforts should include the effects of microbubble activity and vascularization on the pressure field.

Indexed as

Ablation TechniquesAnimalsBrainMacaca mulattaMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, BiologicalNonlinear DynamicsSkullSurgery, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID26843248
PMCPMC4723413
OpenAlexW2260630904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.