Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28044461›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group2017

Equivalence of cell survival data for radiation dose and thermal dose in ablative treatments: analysis applied to essential tremor thalamotomy by focused ultrasound and gamma knife.

D Schlesinger, M Lee, G Ter Haar, B Sela, M Eames, J Snell, N Kassell, J Sheehan, J M Larner, J-F Aubry

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

D Schlesingera Department of Radiation Oncology , University of Virginia , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
M Leeb Focused Ultrasound Foundation , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
G Ter Haard Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging , The Institute of Cancer Research:Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK.
B Selab Focused Ultrasound Foundation , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
M Eamesb Focused Ultrasound Foundation , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
J Snellb Focused Ultrasound Foundation , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
N Kassellb Focused Ultrasound Foundation , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
J Sheehana Department of Radiation Oncology , University of Virginia , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
J M Larnera Department of Radiation Oncology , University of Virginia , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
J-F Aubrya Department of Radiation Oncology , University of Virginia , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
University of Virginia · USFocused Ultrasound Foundation · USCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464Cancer Research UK 19727Department of Health K042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thermal dose and absorbed radiation dose have historically been difficult to compare because different biological mechanisms are at work. Thermal dose denatures proteins and the radiation dose causes DNA damage in order to achieve ablation. The purpose of this paper is to use the proportion of cell survival as a potential common unit by which to measure the biological effect of each procedure. Survival curves for both thermal and radiation doses have been extracted from previously published data for three different cell types. Fits of these curves were used to convert both thermal and radiation dose into the same quantified biological effect: fraction of surviving cells. They have also been used to generate and compare survival profiles from the only indication for which clinical data are available for both focused ultrasound (FUS) thermal ablation and radiation ablation: essential tremor thalamotomy. All cell types could be fitted with coefficients of determination greater than 0.992. As an illustration, survival profiles of clinical thalamotomies performed by radiosurgery and FUS are plotted on a same graph for the same metric: fraction of surviving cells. FUS and Gamma Knife have the potential to be used in combination to deliver a more effective treatment (for example, FUS may be used to debulk the main tumour mass, and radiation to treat the surrounding tumour bed). In this case, a model which compares thermal and radiation treatments is valuable in order to adjust the dose between the two.

Indexed as

damage indexhigh intensity focused ultrasoundradiation dosethermal doseUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID28044461
PMCPMC6203314
OpenAlexW2565710127

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.