ArticlePloS one2023
Nanosecond pulsed electric field ablates rabbit VX2 liver tumors in a non-thermal manner.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanosecond Electric Pulses as a Novel In Situ Vaccination Strategy for Cancer Treatment: Mechanisms, Challenges and Prospects.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields (nsPEFs) for Precision Intracellular Oncotherapy: Recent Advances and Emerging Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Pulsed electric fields: a sharp sword in the battle against cancers.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Inactivation of bacteria using synergistic hydrogen peroxide with split-dose nanosecond pulsed electric field exposures.PloS one · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiver tumor remains an important cause of cancer-related death. Nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEFs) are advantageous in the treatment of melanoma and pancreatic cancer, but their therapeutic application on liver tumors need to be further studied.
methodsHep3B cells were treated with nsPEFs. The biological behaviors of cells were detected by Cell Counting Kit-8, 5-ethynyl-20-deoxyuridine, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) assays. In vivo, rabbit VX2 liver tumor models were ablated by ultrasound-guided nsPEFs and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) was used to evaluate the ablation effect. HE staining and Masson staining were used to evaluate the tissue morphology after ablation. Immunohistochemistry was performed to determine the expression of Ki67, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, and α-smooth muscle actin at different time points after ablation.
resultsThe cell viability of Hep3B cells was continuously lower than that of the control group within 3 days after pulse treatment. The proliferation of Hep3B cells was significantly affected by nsPEFs. TEM showed that Hep3B cells underwent significant morphological changes after pulse treatment. In vivo, CEUS imaging showed that nsPEFs could completely ablate model rabbit VX2 liver tumors. After nsPEFs ablation, the area of tumor fibrosis and the expression of Ki67, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, and α-smooth muscle actin were decreased. However, after RFA, rabbit VX2 liver tumor tissue showed complete necrosis, but the expression of PCNA and α-smooth muscle actin did not decrease compared to the tumor group.
conclusionsnsPEFs can induce Hep3B cells apoptosis and ablate rabbit VX2 liver tumors in a non-thermal manner versus RFA. The ultrasound contrast agent can monitor immediate effect of nsPEF ablation. This study provides a basis for the clinical study of nsPEFs ablation of liver cancer.
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.