ArticleCancers2022
Comparison of Two 2.45 GHz Microwave Ablation Devices with Respect to Ablation Zone Volume in Relation to Applied Energy in Patients with Malignant Liver Tumours.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Configuring thermal ablation volumes for treatment of distinct tumor shapes: a repeatability study using a robotic approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Uncooled TATO microwave system for liver ablation.Hepatic oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: (i) to compare two 2.45 GHz MWA devices with respect to AZV in relation to the applied energy after MWA in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and (ii) to identify potential confounders for this relationship. Methods: In total, 102 tumours, 65 CRLM and 37 HCC were included in this retrospective analysis. Tumours were treated with Emprint (n = 71) or Neuwave (n = 31) MWA devices. Ablation treatment setting were recorded and applied energy was calculated. AZV and tumour volumes were segmented on the contrast-enhanced CT scans obtained 1 week after treatment. The AZV to applied energy R(AZV:E) ratios were calculated for each tumour treatment and compared between both MWA devices and tumour types. Results: R(AZV:E)EMPRINT was 0.41 and R(AZV:E)NEUWAVE was 0.81, p < 0.001. Moderate correlation between AZV and applied energy was found for Emprint (r = 0.57, R2 = 0.32, p < 0.001) and strong correlation was found for Neuwave (r = 0.78, R2 = 0.61, p < 0.001). R(AZV:E)CRLM was 0.45 and R(AZV:E)HCC was 0.52, p = 0.270. Conclusion: This study confirms the unpredictability of AZVs based on the applied output energy for HCC and CRLM. No significant differences in R(AZV:E) were observed between CRLM and HCC. Significantly lower R(AZV:E) was found for Emprint devices compared to Neuwave; however, reflected energy due to cable and antenna design remains unclear and might contribute to these differences.
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.