ArticleScientific reports2022
Effects of different applied voltages of irreversible electroporation on prostate cancer in a mouse model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parameter-Dependent Electroporation and Cellular Responses Induced by Microsecond Pulsed Electric Fields: Different Sensitivity of Two Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cell Lines.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Irreversible electroporation in focal therapy for prostate cancer: current status and future directions.Prostate international · 2026Review
- Pulsed electric fields: a sharp sword in the battle against cancers.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Advances in irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Review
- High-frequency irreversible electroporation ablation for the prostate in Beagle dogs.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Effects of bipolar irreversible electroporation with different pulse durations in a prostate cancer mouse model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a non-thermal ablation method, irreversible electroporation (IRE) has been widely investigated in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, no consensus has been achieved on the optimal parameters of IRE for prostate cancer. Since high voltage is known to carry risks of muscle contraction and patient discomfort, it is crucial to identify the minimum but effective and safer applied voltage to inhibit tumor growth. In this study, the effect of different applied voltages of IRE on prostate cancer was evaluated in BALB/c nude mice. Mathematical simulation and measurement of the actual ablation area revealed a larger ablation area at a higher voltage. In in vivo experiment, except for the three different voltages applied, all groups received identical electrical conditions: pulse number, 180 (20 groups × 9 pulses/group); pulse width, 100 µs; pulse interval, 2 ms; distance between the electrodes, 5 mm; and electrode exposure length, 15 mm. Whilst the tumor volume initially decreased in the 500 V (1000 V/cm) and 700 V (1400 V/cm) groups and subsequently increased, only a transient increase followed by a continuous decrease until the sacrifice was observed in the 900 V (1800 V/cm) group. This result demonstrated a lasting effect of a higher applied voltage on tumor growth inhibition. The histological, immunohistochemical, and western blot findings all confirmed IRE-induced apoptosis in the treatment groups. Taken together, 900 V seemed to be the minimum applied voltage required to reduce tumor growth, though subsequent studies are anticipated to further narrow the voltage intervals and lower the minimum voltage required for tumor inhibition.
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.