ArticleCancers2018
Nano-Pulse Stimulation for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer and the Changes in Immune Profile.
Article in Cancers, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanosecond Electric Pulses as a Novel In Situ Vaccination Strategy for Cancer Treatment: Mechanisms, Challenges and Prospects.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Synergistic Sensitization of Pancreatic Cancer Cells by Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields and Cold Atmospheric Plasma via Amplifying ROS and Apoptotic Signaling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Combination therapy with HSP90 inhibitors and NanoPulse stimulation synergistically impedes hepatocellular carcinoma and breast cancer growth in mice.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Synergistic effects of nanosecond pulsed plasma and electric field on inactivation of pancreatic cancer cells in vitro.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultra-Low Intensity Post-Pulse Affects Cellular Responses Caused by Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Calcium Electrochemotherapy for Tumor Eradication and the Potential of High-Frequency Nanosecond Protocols.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effect of Nanosecond Pulsed Currents on Directions of Cell Elongation and Migration through Time-Lapse Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Editorial: Pulsed electric field based technologies for oncology applications.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Nanosecond pulse effectively ablated hepatocellular carcinoma with alterations in the gut microbiome and serum metabolites.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Exploration of Novel Pathways Underlying Irreversible Electroporation Induced Anti-Tumor Immunity in Pancreatic Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Establishing an immunocompromised porcine model of human cancer for novel therapy development with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and irreversible electroporation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Immune response triggered by the ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma with nanosecond pulsed electric field.Frontiers of medicine · 2021Review
- Effects of Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields in Cell Vitality, Apoptosis, and Proliferation of TPC-1 Cells.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2021Article
- Immunomodulatory Effect of Irreversible Electroporation Alone and Its Cooperating With Immunotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- A dose-response study of a novel method of selective tissue modification of cellular structures in the skin with nanosecond pulsed electric fields.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2020Article
- Patient Derived Xenografts Expand Human Primary Pancreatic Tumor Tissue Availability forFrontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Starting a Fire Without Flame: The Induction of Cell Death and Inflammation in Electroporation-Based Tumor Ablation Strategies.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A Pancreatic cancer is a notorious malignant neoplasm with an extremely poor prognosis. Current standard of care is rarely effective against late-stage pancreatic cancer. In this study, we assessed nanopulse stimulation (NPS) as a local treatment for pancreatic cancer in a syngeneic mouse Pan02 pancreatic cancer model and characterized corresponding changes in the immune profile. A single NPS treatment either achieved complete tumor regression or prolonged overall survival in animals with partial tumor regression. While this is very encouraging, we also explored if this local ablation effect could also result in immune stimulation, as was observed when NPS led to the induction of immune-mediated protection from a second tumor challenge in orthotopic mouse breast and rat liver cancer models. In the Pan02 model, there were insufficient abscopal effects (1/10) and vaccine-like protective effects (1/15) suggesting that NPS-induced immune mechanisms in this model were limited. To evaluate this further, the immune landscape was analyzed. The numbers of both T regulatory cells (Tregs) and myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in blood were significantly reduced, but memory (CD44⁺) T-cells were absent. Furthermore, the numbers of Tregs and MDSCs did not reduce in spleens compared to tumor-bearing mice. Very few T-cells, but large numbers of MDSCs were present in the NPS treated tumor microenvironment (TME). The number of dendritic cells in the TME was increased and multiple activation markers were upregulated following NPS treatment. Overall, NPS treatments used here are effective for pancreatic tumor ablation, but require further optimization for induction of immunity or the need to include effective combinational NPS therapeutic strategy for pancreatic cancer.
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.