Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34630714›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2021

Response of human cancer cells to simultaneous treatment with sorafenib and radiofrequency current.

María Luisa Hernández-Bule, María Antonia Martínez, María Ángeles Trillo, Lidia Martínez, Elena Toledano-Macías, Alejandro Úbeda

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

María Luisa Hernández-BuleBioelectromagnetism-Research Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, IRYCIS, Madrid 28034, Spain.
María Antonia MartínezBioelectromagnetism-Research Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, IRYCIS, Madrid 28034, Spain.
María Ángeles TrilloBioelectromagnetism-Research Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, IRYCIS, Madrid 28034, Spain.
Lidia MartínezBioelectromagnetism-Research Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, IRYCIS, Madrid 28034, Spain.
Elena Toledano-MacíasBioelectromagnetism-Research Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, IRYCIS, Madrid 28034, Spain.
Alejandro ÚbedaBioelectromagnetism-Research Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, IRYCIS, Madrid 28034, Spain.
Instituto Cajal · ESInstituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to their alleged analgesic, anti-inflammatory and tissue regenerative effects, capacitive-resistive electrothermal therapy (CRET), which is based on non-invasive exposure to radiofrequency (RF) currents, is often applied to chemotherapeutically treated patients with cancer. Our previous studies have demonstrated that subthermal CRET currents can elicit a number of cell responses, including anti-proliferative effects, in the human liver cancer cell line HepG2. Such effects involve significant changes in the regulation of proteins involved in MAPK signaling pathways, which are also implicated in the cancer cell response to standard anticancer drugs such as sorafenib. This overlap in response pathways may lead to competitive, neutralizing or blocking interactions between the electrical and chemical treatments, thus raising questions on the advisability of CRET treatment for their analgesic, anti-inflammatory or other purposes in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The present study analyzed the effects of simultaneous treatment with sorafenib and 448-kHz, subthermal CRET current on the proliferation and viability of HepG2 cell cultures. Cell viability was assessed through Trypan blue or XTT assays, while flow cytometry was applied for cell cycle and apoptosis analysis. The expression of proteins involved in cell proliferation were assessed by immunoblotting and immunofluorescence. The results revealed no evidence to suggest that the electrical treatment counteracted or neutralized the cellular response to sorafenib at the different conditions evaluated. Furthermore, at the standard pharmacological sorafenib concentration, 5 µM, the combined treatment elicited an anti-proliferative response significantly stronger than that induced by each of the treatments when applied separately in HepG2 cells. These data do not support the hypothesis that CRET exposure may inhibit or diminish the effects of a chemotherapeutic drug used in cancer treatment, and highlights the requirement for further investigation into the cell response to the combined action of electrical and chemical treatments.

Indexed as

cell cycleEGFRelectrotherapyHepG2 cellssorafenib

Identifiers

PMID34630714
PMCPMC8488331
OpenAlexW3202172289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.