Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27556507›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2016

In vitro comparison of conventional hyperthermia and modulated electro-hyperthermia.

Kai-Lin Yang, Cheng-Chung Huang, Mau-Shin Chi, Hsin-Chien Chiang, Yu-Shan Wang, Chien-Chung Hsia, Gabor Andocs, Hsin-Ell Wang, Kwan-Hwa Chi

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Pulsing Addition to Modulated Electro-Hyperthermia.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kai-Lin YangDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cheng-Chung HuangDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mau-Shin ChiDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsin-Chien ChiangDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yu-Shan WangDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chien-Chung HsiaInstitute of Nuclear Energy Research, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Gabor AndocsDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, Japan.
Hsin-Ell WangDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kwan-Hwa ChiDepartment of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWInstitute of Nuclear Energy Research · TWUniversity of Toyama · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiofrequency-induced hyperthermia (HT) treatments for cancer include conventional capacitive coupling hyperthermia (cCHT) and modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT). In this study, we directly compared these methods with regard to in vitro cytotoxicity and mechanisms of action under isothermal conditions. Hepatoma (HepG2) cells were exposed to HT treatment (42°C for 30 min) using mEHT, cCHT or a water bath. mEHT produced a much higher apoptosis rate (43.1% ± 5.8%) than cCHT (10.0% ± 0.6%), the water bath (8.4% ± 1.7%) or a 37°C control (6.6% ± 1.1%). The apoptosis-inducing effect of mEHT at 42°C was similar to that achieved with a water bath at 46°C. mEHT also increased expression of caspase-3, 8 and 9. All three hyperthermia methods increased intracellular heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) levels, but only mEHT greatly increased the release of Hsp70 from cells. Calreticulin and E-cadherin levels in the cell membrane also increased after mEHT treatment, but not after cCHT or water bath. These results suggest that mEHT selectively deposits energy on the cell membrane and may be a useful treatment modality that targets cancer cell membranes.

Indexed as

ApoptosisHot Temperaturebeta CateninCadherinsCalreticulinCaspasesCell Line, TumorCell MembraneHep G2 CellsHSP70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHumansHyperthermia, InducedMCF-7 CellsNeoplasmsReactive Oxygen Speciesbeta CateninCadherinsCalreticulinCaspasesHSP70 Heat-Shock ProteinsReactive Oxygen Speciescell membraneconventional capacitive coupling hyperthermiacytotoxicitymodulated electro-hyperthermiawater bath

Identifiers

PMID27556507
PMCPMC5356646
OpenAlexW2513170468

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.