Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26848919›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurosurgery2016

Nonthermal ablation in the rat brain using focused ultrasound and an ultrasound contrast agent: long-term effects.

Nathan McDannold, Yongzhi Zhang, Natalia Vykhodtseva

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurosurgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Nathan McDannoldDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Yongzhi ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Natalia VykhodtsevaDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

Image Guided Therapy Center - Ultrasound-based sensor system for the monitoring of COVID-19 patientsP41EB015898 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI TEMPANY, CLARE M · 2012 to 2021
$18.9M
Ultrasound-induced blood-brain/tumor barrier disruption in brain metastasesP01CA174645 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI MCDANNOLD, NATHAN J. · 2013 to 2017
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA174645NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015898
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Thermal ablation with transcranial MRI-guided focused ultrasound (FUS) is currently under investigation as a less invasive alternative to radiosurgery and resection. A major limitation of the method is that its use is currently restricted to centrally located brain targets. The combination of FUS and a microbubble-based ultrasound contrast agent greatly reduces the ultrasound exposure level needed to ablate brain tissue and could be an effective means to increase the "treatment envelope" for FUS in the brain. This method, however, ablates tissue through a different mechanism: destruction of the microvasculature. It is not known whether nonthermal FUS ablation in substantial volumes of tissue can safely be performed without unexpected effects. The authors investigated this question by ablating volumes in the brains of normal rats. METHODS Overlapping sonications were performed in rats (n = 15) to ablate a volume in 1 hemisphere per animal. The sonications (10-msec bursts at 1 Hz for 60 seconds; peak negative pressure 0.8 MPa) were combined with the ultrasound contrast agent Optison (100 µl/kg). The rats were followed with MRI for 4-9 weeks after FUS, and the brains were examined with histological methods. RESULTS Two weeks after sonication and later, the lesions appeared as cyst-like areas in T2-weighted MR images that were stable over time. Histological examination demonstrated well-defined lesions consisting of a cyst-like cavity that remained lined by astrocytic tissue. Some white matter structures within the sonicated area were partially intact. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that nonthermal FUS ablation can be used to safely ablate tissue volumes in the brain without unexpected delayed effects. The findings are encouraging for the use of this ablation method in the brain.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaSurgery, Computer-AssistedUltrasonography, InterventionalAblation TechniquesAnimalsBrainMaleNeurosurgical ProceduresRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyTime FactorsContrast MediaablationbrainETL = echo train lengthfocused ultrasoundFOV = field of viewFSE = fast spin echoFUS = focused ultrasoundH & E = hematoxylin and eosinLFB = Luxol fast blue

Identifiers

PMID26848919
PMCPMC4975676
OpenAlexW2277163289

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.