Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32997180›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Standardizing percutaneous Microwave Ablation in the treatment of Lung Tumors: a prospective multicenter trial (MALT study).

Roberto Iezzi, Roberto Cioni, Domenico Basile, Nevio Tosoratti, Alessandro Posa, Marco Busso, Carla Cappelli, Stefano Margaritora, Marcello Carlo Ambrogi, Alessandra Cassano and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dielectric properties, thermal properties, blood perfusion rate: which biophysical parameter is the leading source of variability of microwave ablation models in lung?International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Roberto IezziDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia - Istituto di Radiologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, L.go A Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. roberto.iezzi.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2791-481X
Roberto CioniDivision of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Domenico BasileRadiology Unit, San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital - Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Nevio TosorattiR&D Unit, HS Hospital Service SpA, Aprilia, LT, Italy.
Alessandro PosaDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia - Istituto di Radiologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, L.go A Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Marco BussoRadiology Unit, San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital - Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Carla CappelliDivision of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Stefano MargaritoraUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Marcello Carlo AmbrogiDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Cardio Vascular and Thoracic Department, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Alessandra CassanoUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Rossella ScandiffioDivision of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Marco CalandriRadiology Unit, San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital - Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Laura CrocettiDivision of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Vincenzo ValentiniUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Riccardo ManfrediDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia - Istituto di Radiologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, L.go A Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Andrea VeltriRadiology Unit, San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital - Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITOspedale Cisanello · ITUniversity of Turin · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo prospectively assess reproducibility, safety, and efficacy of microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable primary and secondary pulmonary tumors.

methodsPatients with unresectable primary and metastatic lung tumors up to 4 cm were enrolled in a multicenter prospective clinical trial and underwent CT-guided MWA. Treatments were delivered using pre-defined MW power and duration settings, based on target tumor size and histology classifications. Patients were followed for up to 24 months. Treatment safety, efficacy, and reproducibility were assessed. Ablation volumes were measured at CT scan and compared with ablation volumes obtained on ex vivo bovine liver using equal treatment settings.

resultsFrom September 2015 to September 2017, 69 MWAs were performed in 54 patients, achieving technical success in all cases and treatment completion without deviations from the standardized protocol in 61 procedures (88.4%). Immediate post-MWA CT scans showed ablation dimensions smaller by about 25% than in the ex vivo model; however, a remarkable volumetric increase (40%) of the treated area was observed at 1 month post-ablation. No treatment-related deaths nor complications were recorded. Treatments of equal power and duration yielded fairly reproducible ablation dimensions at 48-h post-MWA scans. In comparison with the ex vivo liver model, in vivo ablation sizes were systematically smaller, by about 25%. Overall LPR was 24.7%, with an average TLP of 8.1 months. OS rates at 12 and 24 months were 98.0% and 71.3%, respectively.

conclusionsPercutaneous CT-guided MWA is a reproducible, safe, and effective treatment for malignant lung tumors up to 4 cm in size. KEY POINTS: • Percutaneous MWA treatment of primary and secondary lung tumors is a repeatable, safe, and effective therapeutic option. • It provides a fairly reproducible performance on both the long and short axis of the ablation zone. • When using pre-defined treatment duration and power settings according to tumor histology and size, LPR does not increase with increasing tumor size (up to 4 cm) for both primary and metastatic tumors.

Indexed as

Catheter AblationLung NeoplasmsRadiofrequency AblationAnimalsCattleHumansMicrowavesProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeLungMicrowaveNeoplasmsRadiofrequency ablationSafety

Identifiers

PMID32997180
OpenAlexW3090520590

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.