ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Novel irreversible electroporation ablation (Nano-knife) versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of solid liver tumors: a comparative, randomized, multicenter clinical study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Clinical strategies and indication expansion of interventional ultrasonography ablative therapy for hepatic tumors].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- Review
- Dose Is a Critical Factor Affecting Treatment Volumes for Integrated Nanosecond Pulse Irreversible Electroporation (INSPIRE).IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Stereotactic two-needle irreversible electroporation of liver tumors near critical structures: a proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Nanotechnology-Enabled Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Theranostics, Combination Regimens, and Translation.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Locoregional Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Review
- Pulsed field ablation in medicine: irreversible electroporation and electropermeabilization theory and applications.Radiology and oncology · 2025Review
- Computer modelling and vegetable bench test of a bipolar electrode array intended for use in high frequency irreversible electroporation treatment of skin cancer.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Article
- Research Trends on Nanomaterials and Hepatocellular Carcinoma From 1999 to 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Electroporation in Translational Medicine: From Veterinary Experience to Human Oncology.Cancers · 2024Review
- The debate between electricity and heat, efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver cancer: A meta-analysis.Open life sciences · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a soft tissue ablation technique that uses short electrical fields which induce the death of target cells. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an IRE-based device compared to regular radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of solid liver tumors, in this multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study, 152 patients with malignant liver tumors were randomized into IRE (n = 78) and RFA (n = 74) groups. The primary endpoint was the success rate of tumor ablation; the secondary endpoints included the tumor ablation time, complications, tumor recurrence rates and treatment-related adverse events (TRAE). The success rate of tumor ablation using IRE was 94.9% and was non-inferior to the RFA group (96.0%) (P = 0.761). For the secondary endpoints, the average ablation time was 34.29 ± 30.38 min for the IRE group, which was significantly longer than for the RFA group (19.91 ± 16.08 min) (P < 0.001). The incidences of postoperative complications after 1 week (P = 1.000), 1 month (P = 0.610) and 3 months (P = 0.490) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The recurrence rates of liver tumor at 1, 3 and 6 months after ablation were 0 (0.0%), 10 (13.9%) and 10 (13.3%) in the IRE group and 2.9%, 7.3% and 19.7% in the RFA control group (all P > 0.05), respectively. For safety assessments, 51 patients experienced 191 AEs (65.4%) in the IRE group, which was not different from the RFA group (73.0%, 54/184) (P = 0.646). In 7 IRE patients, 8 TRAEs (7.9%) occurred, the most common being edema of the limbs (mild grade) and fever (severe grade), while no TRAEs occurred in the RFA group. This study proved that the excellent safety and efficacy of IRE was non-inferior to the regular radiofrequency device in ablation performance for the treatment of solid liver tumors.
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.