Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37191030›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2023

Efficacy of fusion imaging for immediate post-ablation assessment of malignant liver neoplasms: A systematic review.

Pragati Rai, Mohammed Yusuf Ansari, Mohammed Warfa, Hammad Al-Hamar, Julien Abinahed, Ali Barah, Sarada Prasad Dakua, Shidin Balakrishnan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pragati RaiDepartment of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Mohammed Yusuf AnsariDepartment of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Mohammed WarfaDepartment of Clinical Imaging, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Hammad Al-HamarDepartment of Clinical Imaging, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Julien AbinahedDepartment of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Ali BarahDepartment of Clinical Imaging, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Sarada Prasad DakuaDepartment of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Shidin BalakrishnanDepartment of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0001-6361-4980
Hamad Medical Corporation · QAAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous thermal ablation has become the preferred therapeutic treatment option for liver cancers that cannot be resected. Since ablative zone tissue changes over time, it becomes challenging to determine therapy effectiveness over an extended period. Thus, an immediate post-procedural evaluation of the ablation zone is crucial, as it could influence the need for a second-look treatment or follow-up plan. Assessing treatment response immediately after ablation is essential to attain favorable outcomes. This study examines the efficacy of image fusion strategies immediately post-ablation in liver neoplasms to determine therapeutic response. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive systematic search using PRISMA methodology was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PUBMED), and Cochrane Library Central Registry electronic databases to identify articles that assessed the immediate post-ablation response in malignant hepatic tumors with fusion imaging (FI) systems. The data were retrieved on relevant clinical characteristics, including population demographics, pre-intervention clinical history, lesion characteristics, and intervention type. For the outcome metrics, variables such as average fusion time, intervention metrics, technical success rate, ablative safety margin, supplementary ablation rate, technical efficacy rate, LTP rates, and reported complications were extracted.

resultsTwenty-two studies were included for review after fulfilling the study eligibility criteria. FI's immediate technical success rate ranged from 81.3% to 100% in 17/22 studies. In 16/22 studies, the ablative safety margin was assessed immediately after ablation. Supplementary ablation was performed in 9 studies following immediate evaluation by FI. In 15/22 studies, the technical effectiveness rates during the first follow-up varied from 89.3% to 100%.

conclusionBased on the studies included, we found that FI can accurately determine the immediate therapeutic response in liver cancer ablation image fusion and could be a feasible intraprocedural tool for determining short-term post-ablation outcomes in unresectable liver neoplasms. There are some technical challenges that limit the widespread adoption of FI techniques. Large-scale randomized trials are warranted to improve on existing protocols. Future research should emphasize improving FI's technological capabilities and clinical applicability to a broader range of tumor types and ablation procedures.

Indexed as

Ablation TechniquesCarcinoma, HepatocellularCatheter AblationLiver NeoplasmsHumansTomography, X-Ray Computedablation techniquesablative marginimage fusionliver neoplasmstreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37191030
PMCPMC10358230
OpenAlexW4376642941

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.