Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37695398›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2023

New Developments in Image-Guided Percutaneous Irreversible Electroporation of Solid Tumors.

Jung H Yun, Adam Fang, Fereshteh Khorshidi, Peiman Habibollahi, Oleksandra Kutsenko, Vahid Etezadi, Stephen Hunt, Nariman Nezami

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Non-Thermal Liver Ablation: Existing and New Technology.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2023
    Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jung H YunDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Adam FangDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S Greene St, Baltimore, MD, N2W79A, USA.
Fereshteh KhorshidiDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S Greene St, Baltimore, MD, N2W79A, USA.
Peiman HabibollahiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Oleksandra KutsenkoMiami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, FL, USA.
Vahid EtezadiDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S Greene St, Baltimore, MD, N2W79A, USA.
Stephen HuntDivision of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Nariman NezamiDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S Greene St, Baltimore, MD, N2W79A, USA. dr.nezami@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8829-1548
University of Maryland, Baltimore · USThe Cardiac and Vascular Institute · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review will describe the various applications, benefits, risks, and approaches of conventional irreversible electroporation (IRE), as well as highlight the new technological developments of this procedure along with their clinical applications. RECENT

findingsMinimally invasive image-guided percutaneous IRE ablation has emerged as a newer, non-thermal ablation technique for tumors in the solid organs, particularly within the liver, pancreas, kidney, and prostate. IRE allows for ablation near heat-sensitive structures, including major blood vessels and nerves, and is not susceptible to the heat sink effect. However, it is limited by certain requirements, such as the need for precise parallel placement of at least two probes with a maximum inter-probe distance of 2.5 cm to reduce the risk of arching phenomenon, the requirement for general anesthesia with muscle relaxant, and the need for cardiac synchronization. However, new technological advancements in the ablation system and image guidance tools have been introduced to improve the efficiency and efficacy of IRE. IRE is a safe and effective treatment option for solid tumor ablation within the liver, pancreas, kidney, and prostate. Compared with other ablation techniques, IRE has several advantages, such as the absence of heat sink effect and minimal injury to blood vessels and bile ducts while activating the immune system. Novel techniques such as H-FIRE, needle placement systems, and robotics have enhanced the accuracy and performance in placement of IRE probes. IRE can be especially beneficial when combined with chemotherapy, immunomodulation, and immunotherapy.

Indexed as

Ablation TechniquesNeoplasmsElectroporationHumansLiverMaleTreatment OutcomeAblationIrreversible electroporationPercutaneousPulse electric fieldTumor

Identifiers

PMID37695398
OpenAlexW4386592583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.