ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Review
- Determination of lethal electric field threshold for pulsed field ablation inFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Effects of different applied voltages of irreversible electroporation on prostate cancer in a mouse model.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Irreversible Electroporation: Background, Theory, and Review of Recent Developments in Clinical Oncology.Bioelectricity · 2019Review
- Two-dimensional ultrasound-computed tomography image registration for monitoring percutaneous hepatic intervention.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Numerical simulation modeling of the irreversible electroporation treatment zone for focal therapy of prostate cancer, correlation with whole-mount pathology and T2-weighted MRI sequences.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 mm(2)) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 mm(2)). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.
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.