ArticleAcademic radiology2022
Validation of Software for Patient-Specific Real-Time Simulation of Hepatic Radiofrequency Ablation.
Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07226869 (Computer Guided Microwave Liver Ablation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Computer Guided Microwave Liver Ablation
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Thermal Ablation: Current Applications and Future Directions in Microwave Technologies.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- A Paradigm Shift in Primary Liver Cancer Therapy Utilizing Genomics, Molecular Biomarkers, and Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2023Review
- Predictive Factors of Local Recurrence after Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Thermal Ablation.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Prediction of Ablation Volume in Percutaneous Lung Microwave Ablation: A Single Centre Retrospective Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesCT-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a potentially curative minimally invasive treatment for liver cancer. Local tumor recurrence limits the success of RFA for large or irregular tumors as it is difficult to visualize the tissue destroyed. This study was designed to validate a real-time software-simulated ablation volume for intraprocedural guidance. MATERIALS AND
methodsSoftware that simulated RFA physics calculated ablation volumes in 17 agar-albumin phantoms (7 with a simulated vessel) and in six in-vivo (porcine) ablations. The software-modeled volumes were compared with the actual ablations (physical lesion in agar, contrast CT in the porcine model) and to the volume predicted by the manufacturer's charts. Error was defined as the distance from evenly distributed points on the segmented true ablation volume surfaces to the closest points on the corresponding computer-generated model, and for the porcine model, to the manufacturer-specified ablation volume.
resultsThe average maximum error of the simulation was 2.8 mm (range to 4.9 mm) in the phantoms. The heat-sink effect from the simulated vessel was well-modeled by the simulation. In the porcine model, the average maximum error of the simulation was 5.2 mm (range to 8.1 mm) vs 7.8 mm (range to 10.0mm) for the manufacturer's model (p = 0.009).
conclusionA real-time computer-generated RFA model incorporated tine position, energy deposited, and large vessel proximity to predict the ablation volume in agar phantoms with less than 3mm maximum error. Although the in-vivo model had slightly higher maximum error, the software better predicted the achieved ablation volume compared to the manufacturer's ablation maps.
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.