Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039220›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2022

Validation of Software for Patient-Specific Real-Time Simulation of Hepatic Radiofrequency Ablation.

Eric K Hoffer, Andrea Borsic, Sohum D Patel

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07226869 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Computer Guided Microwave Liver Ablation

TypeinterventionalSponsorNE Scientific INCRan2026 to 2030Enrolled84ConditionsHepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)ArmsComputer-Assisted Microwave Liver Ablation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Eric K HofferDirector of Interventional Radiology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (E.K.H.), One Medical Center Dr., Lebanon, New Hampshire 03755; CEO NE Scientific LLC (A.B.), Boston, Massachusetts; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755 (S.D.P.). Electronic address: hoffer@hitchcock.org.
Andrea BorsicDirector of Interventional Radiology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (E.K.H.), One Medical Center Dr., Lebanon, New Hampshire 03755; CEO NE Scientific LLC (A.B.), Boston, Massachusetts; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755 (S.D.P.).
Sohum D PatelDirector of Interventional Radiology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (E.K.H.), One Medical Center Dr., Lebanon, New Hampshire 03755; CEO NE Scientific LLC (A.B.), Boston, Massachusetts; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755 (S.D.P.).

Funding

An Intraoperative Guidance Platform for Radio Frequency AblationR44CA189515 · NCI · NE SCIENTIFIC, LLC · PI BORSIC, ANDREA · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
An Intraoperative Guidance Platform for Radio Frequency AblationR43CA189515 · NCI · NE SCIENTIFIC, LLC · PI BORSIC, ANDREA · 2014 to 2014
$218k
NCI NIH HHS R43 CA189515NCI NIH HHS R44 CA189515
6 · The paper itself

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

Catheter AblationLiver NeoplasmsAgarAnimalsLiverSoftwareSwineAgarAblation techniquesComputer-assisted therapiesliver neoplasmsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID35039220
PMCPMC9276838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.