Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37440502›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Electrochemotherapy vs radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Angus Torry McMillan, Luke McElroy, Lorcan O'Toole, Paolo Matteucci, Joshua Philip Totty

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reversible electroporation for cancer therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2025
    Review
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angus Torry McMillanDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Cottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3586-5333
Luke McElroyDepartment of General Surgery, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Larbert, United Kingdom.
Lorcan O'TooleDepartment of Oncology, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Cottingham, United Kingdom.
Paolo MatteucciDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Cottingham, United Kingdom.
Joshua Philip TottyDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Cottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0063-1414
Forth Valley Royal Hospital · GBUniversity of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectrochemotherapy has gained international traction and commendation in national guidelines as an effective tool in the management of cutaneous malignancies not amenable to surgical resection. Despite this, no level 5 evidence exists comparing it to radiotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous malignancies. This systematic review aimed to examine the literature directly and indirectly comparing electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies. MATERIALS &

methodsThe protocol for this review was registered on the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the protocol ID CRD42021285415. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were undertaken from database inception to 28 December 2021. Studies in humans comparing treatment with electrochemotherapy to radiotherapy and reporting tumour response with a minimum four week follow-up were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results are provided as a narrative synthesis.

resultsTwo case series with a total of 92 patients were identified as relevant to this study. Both case series examined patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. One case series examined elderly patients with predominantly head/neck lesions. The other examined younger patients with predominantly limb lesions who had cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma directly attributable to a rare skin condition.

conclusionThere is little literature presenting comparative data for electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases. Included studies were marred by serious risk of bias particularly due to confounding. The inherent bias and heterogeneity of the included studies precluded synthesis of a consolidated comparison of clinical outcomes between the two therapies. Further research is required in this domain in the form of clinical trials and observational studies to inform guidelines for electrochemotherapy treatment.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellElectrochemotherapySkin NeoplasmsAgedHumans

Identifiers

PMID37440502
PMCPMC10343145
OpenAlexW4384156557

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.