Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27069447›Full record

ArticleRadiology and oncology2016

A statistical model describing combined irreversible electroporation and electroporation-induced blood-brain barrier disruption.

Shirley Sharabi, Bor Kos, David Last, David Guez, Dianne Daniels, Sagi Harnof, Yael Mardor, Damijan Miklavcic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology and oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Electrotherapies for Glioblastoma.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Shirley Sharabi
Bor KosUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
David LastThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
David GuezThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Dianne Daniels
Sagi Harnof
Yael Mardor
Damijan MiklavcicUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectroporation-based therapies such as electrochemotherapy (ECT) and irreversible electroporation (IRE) are emerging as promising tools for treatment of tumors. When applied to the brain, electroporation can also induce transient blood-brain-barrier (BBB) disruption in volumes extending beyond IRE, thus enabling efficient drug penetration. The main objective of this study was to develop a statistical model predicting cell death and BBB disruption induced by electroporation. This model can be used for individual treatment planning. MATERIAL AND

methodsCell death and BBB disruption models were developed based on the Peleg-Fermi model in combination with numerical models of the electric field. The model calculates the electric field thresholds for cell kill and BBB disruption and describes the dependence on the number of treatment pulses. The model was validated using in vivo experimental data consisting of rats brains MRIs post electroporation treatments.

resultsLinear regression analysis confirmed that the model described the IRE and BBB disruption volumes as a function of treatment pulses number (r(2) = 0.79; p < 0.008, r(2) = 0.91; p < 0.001). The results presented a strong plateau effect as the pulse number increased. The ratio between complete cell death and no cell death thresholds was relatively narrow (between 0.88-0.91) even for small numbers of pulses and depended weakly on the number of pulses. For BBB disruption, the ratio increased with the number of pulses. BBB disruption radii were on average 67% ± 11% larger than IRE volumes.

conclusionsThe statistical model can be used to describe the dependence of treatment-effects on the number of pulses independent of the experimental setup.

Indexed as

blood brain barrierelectroporarionPeleg-Fermi

Identifiers

PMID27069447
PMCPMC4825337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.