Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34073865›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

A Systematic Review about Imaging and Histopathological Findings for Detecting and Evaluating Electroporation Based Treatments Response.

Vincenza Granata, Roberta Fusco, Simona Salati, Antonella Petrillo, Elio Di Bernardo, Roberta Grassi, Raffaele Palaia, Ginevra Danti, Michelearcangelo La Porta, Matteo Cadossi and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Immunotherapy Assessment: A New Paradigm for Radiologists.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Vincenza GranataDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, I-80131 Naples, Italy.
Roberta FuscoOncology Medical and Research & Development Division, IGEA SpA, I-41012 Carpi, Italy.
Simona SalatiOncology Medical and Research & Development Division, IGEA SpA, I-41012 Carpi, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8072-1128
Antonella PetrilloDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, I-80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2465-5370
Elio Di BernardoOncology Medical and Research & Development Division, IGEA SpA, I-41012 Carpi, Italy.
Roberta GrassiRadiology Division, Università Degli Studi Della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, I-80143 Naples, Italy.
Raffaele PalaiaHepatobiliary Surgical Oncology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, I-80131 Naples, Italy.
Ginevra DantiRadiology Division, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, I-50139 Florence, Italy.
Michelearcangelo La PortaDepartment of Radiology, UOC San Severo Hospital, 71016 San Severo, Italy.
Matteo CadossiOncology Medical and Research & Development Division, IGEA SpA, I-41012 Carpi, Italy.
Gorana GašljevićDepartment of Pathology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloska cesta 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Gregor SersaDepartment of Experimental Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloska cesta 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-7641-5670
Francesco IzzoHepatobiliary Surgical Oncology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, I-80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3093-5408
IGEA Clinical Biophysics (Italy) · ITIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITInstitute of Oncology Ljubljana · SISocietà Italiana di Reumatologia · ITUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImaging methods and the most appropriate criteria to be used for detecting and evaluating response to oncological treatments depend on the pathology and anatomical site to be treated and on the treatment to be performed. This document provides a general overview of the main imaging and histopathological findings of electroporation-based treatments (Electrochemotherapy-ECT and Irreversible electroporation-IRE) compared to thermal approach, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), in deep-seated cancers with a particular attention to pancreatic and liver cancer.

methodsNumerous electronic datasets were examined: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The research covered the years from January 1990 to April 2021. All titles and abstracts were analyzed. The inclusion criteria were the following: studies that report imaging or histopathological findings after ablative thermal and not thermal loco-regional treatments (ECT, IRE, RFA) in deep-seated cancers including pancreatic and liver cancer and articles published in the English language. Exclusion criteria were unavailability of full text and congress abstracts or posters and different topic respect to inclusion criteria.

results558 potentially relevant references through electronic searches were identified. A total of 38 articles met the inclusion criteria: 20 studies report imaging findings after RFA or ECT or IRE in pancreatic and liver cancer; 17 studies report histopathological findings after RFA or ECT or IRE; 1 study reports both imaging and histopathological findings after RFA or ECT or IRE.

conclusionsImaging features are related to the type of therapy administrated, to the timing of re-assessment post therapy and to the imaging technique being used to observe the effects. Histological findings after both ECT and IRE show that the treated area becomes necrotic and encapsulated in fibrous tissue, suggesting that the size of the treated lesion cannot be measured as an endpoint to detect response. Moreover, histology frequently reported signs of apoptosis and reduced vital tissue, implying that imaging criteria, which take into account the viability and not the size of the lesion, are more appropriate to evaluate response to treatment.

Indexed as

Liver NeoplasmsRadiofrequency AblationElectroporationHumansPancreaselectrochemotherapyhistopathological findingsimaging findingsirreversible electroporationradiofrequency ablation

Identifiers

PMID34073865
PMCPMC8197272
OpenAlexW3164722345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.