ArticleOncology letters2018
Irreversible electroporation of malignant liver tumors: Effect on laboratory values.
Article in Oncology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Developments in Image-Guided Percutaneous Irreversible Electroporation of Solid Tumors.Current oncology reports · 2023Review
- Image-Guided Percutaneous Ablation for Primary and Metastatic Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- An overview of the irreversible electroporation for the treatment of liver metastases: When to use it.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Current perspectives on microwave ablation of liver lesions in difficult locations.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2022Review
- Recent progress in pulsed electric field ablation for liver cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Irreversible Electroporation: Background, Theory, and Review of Recent Developments in Clinical Oncology.Bioelectricity · 2019Review
- Percutaneous cryoablation for the treatment of liver cancer at special sites: an assessment of efficacy and safety.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liver cancer is often associated with chronic liver diseases. Treatment with percutaneous irreversible electroporation (IRE) may preserve liver function. In the present study, the clinical data of 29 patients with liver tumors between July 2015 and December 2016, all of whom underwent liver IRE at Fuda Cancer Hospital, Guangzhou, China was retrospectively reviewed. All the patients survived the treatment. Of the 29 patients, 7 were positive for hepatitis B, 15 had hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 7 had pancreatic cancer with liver metastases. All patients survived IRE. Despite liver-protective treatment prior to IRE, the mean alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) levels were significantly elevated 1-2 days after IRE, to 540 and 712 U/l, respectively; however they had returned to the preoperative values by 2 weeks following IRE. Prior to IRE, the mean total bilirubin and direct bilirubin measurement levels were normal; however, 8-10 days after IRE, they had increased to 24 U/l and 12 µmol/l, respectively, and had returned back to the preoperative levels by 2 weeks after IRE. This first group included all patients. The result of the 4 subgroups of cancer patients demonstrated a variation between different measurement days and recovery with patients positive for the hepatitis B virus taking the longest duration to recover (17±3 days) meanwhile patients with pancreatic cancer with liver metastases took the shortest time to achieve recovery (10.78±2 days). The findings of the present study indicate that hepatic injury caused by IRE is transient and self-limiting in patients with liver tumors.
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.