Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28620685›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2017

The efficacy of a new high intensity focused ultrasound therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Jing Zhao, Fuguang Zhao, Yulan Shi, Yongchuan Deng, Xiaoye Hu, Hong Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for pancreatic cancer.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2022
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Jing ZhaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China.
Fuguang ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
Yulan ShiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China.
Yongchuan DengDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China.
Xiaoye HuDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China. huhu3570@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-6872
Hong ShenDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China. shenhong0023@zju.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the survival benefit and safety of the low power cumulative and traditional high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

methodWe retrospectively analyzed 38 patients with locally advanced, inoperable, stage III pancreatic patients received HIFU treatment between January 2008 and April 2014 in the Department of Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine. 11 of them received the low power cumulative HIFU treatment, while other 27 received the traditional HIFU treatment. The HIFU device used was the FEP-BY02 (Yuande Biomedical Engineering Co. Ltd, Beijing, China). Serum biochemistry and adverse events were assessed before and after treatment. All the patients were followed up until death. The survival rate and adverse events of two groups were compared.

resultsIn 38 patients, the baseline characteristics including gender, age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score, tumor location of two groups were generally well balanced (P > 0.05). The median overall survival (OS) for low power cumulative HIFU group was 10.3 months (95% CI, 6.3-14.3 months), which is significantly longer than traditional HIFU group with 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.2-6.8 months) (P = 0.018). In low power cumulative HIFU group, the 6-month and 12-month survival rates were higher than traditional group, 100% v.s 44.4%, 11.1% v.s 36.4%, respectively. The adverse events in both groups include abdominal pain, fever, C-reactive protein (CRP) elevated. The incidence was lower in low power cumulative HIFU group, however, without statistical significance.

conclusionThe low power cumulative HIFU treatment showed a statistical significance in survival benefit with better safety profile compared to the traditional HIFU treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHigh-Intensity Focused Ultrasound AblationHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesEfficacyHigh intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)Locally advanced pancreatic cancerLow power cumulativeOverall survival

Identifiers

PMID28620685
PMCPMC11818961

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.