Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36249062›Full record

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.

Xiaobo Zhang, Xiao Zhang, Xiaoyi Ding, Zhongmin Wang, Yong Fan, Guang Chen, Xiaokun Hu, Jiasheng Zheng, Zhixiao Xue, Xiaofeng He and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaobo ZhangDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiao ZhangDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyi DingDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zhongmin WangDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yong FanDepartment of Medical Imaging, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Guang ChenDepartment of Radiology, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Xiaokun HuDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Jiasheng ZhengCenter of Interventional Oncology and Liver Diseases, Beijing Youan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhixiao XueSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Xiaofeng HeDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xin ZhangDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yingtian WeiDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhongliang ZhangDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jing LiDepartment of Radiology, Characteristic Medical Center of Chinese People's Armed Police Force, Tianjin, China.
Jie LiDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jie YangDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaodong XueDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Li MaDepartment of Anesthesiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yueyong XiaoDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chinese People's Liberation Army · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNTianjin Medical University · CNBeijing YouAn Hospital · CNChinese People's Armed Police General Hospital · CNPLA Academy of Military Science · CNQingdao University · CNTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ablationhepatocellular carcinomairreversible electroporation-based ablation (IRE)liver cancerradiofrequency

Identifiers

PMID36249062
PMCPMC9557230
OpenAlexW4298000362

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.