ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Single-needle electroporation and interstitial electrochemotherapy: in vivo safety and efficacy evaluation of a new system.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Advances in Electrochemotherapy.Bioelectricity · 2019Review
- Pulse Parameters and Thresholds for (ir)Reversible Electroporation on Hepatocellular Carcinoma CellsTechnology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Temperature Distribution on Classical Two Needles IRE Setup Versus a Single Needle Prototype.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe conducted an in vivo trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of a newly developed system for the application of a combined therapy consisting of irreversible electroporation (IRE) and electrochemotherapy (IRECT) in the liver. The system is conceived as a single-needle multitined applicator with expandable electrodes that allow interstitial injection of fluids, e.g., chemotherapy.
methodsExperiments were conducted in ten domestic pigs. The applicator was placed in different liver lobes under CT guidance. In one lobe, the applicator was used for conventional IRE (1500 V, 120 pulses, pulse length 100 μs). In the other lobe, the same procedure was performed preceded by the injection of a doxorubicin mixture through the expandable electrodes (IRECT). Contrast-enhanced CT and MRI were performed on days 1, 3, and 7 after the procedure. Accordingly, three animals were sacrificed on days 1, 3, and 7 after the imaging and ablation volumes were evaluated histopathologically. Related t test was used to compare the groups.
resultsTechnical success was achieved in 9/10 experiments. One animal deceased during the intervention because of ventricular fibrillation. Follow-up CT 1 and 3 days after intervention showed a significant (p < 0.05) difference in the ablation volumes of IRECT vs IRE, respectively, of 4.47 ± 1.78 ml vs 2.51 ± 0.93 ml and of 3.39 ± 1.05 vs 1.53 ± 0.78 ml.
conclusionsIRECT using the newly developed system proved to be effective and provided significantly larger ablation volumes compared with IRE alone. However, ECG triggering is a necessary prerequisite to allow a safe application of the system. KEY POINTS: • Working on the geometry of the IRE applicator in terms of expandable electrodes may overcome the current limitations of IRE resulting from the placement of multiple electrodes. • Efficacy of IRE ablations can be enhanced by the interstitial application of chemotherapy in the periphery of ablation areas.
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.