ReviewCurrent medicinal chemistry2025
Clinical Trials of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for Cancer: Concerns Arising from Low Post-Hoc Power.
Review in Current medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining the Interaction in a Drug Combination using the Dose-based or Effect-based Method.Current neuropharmacology · 2025Review
- Intracellular Pharmacokinetics of Activated Drugs in a Prodrug-Enzyme-Ultrasound System: Evaluations on ZD2767P+CPG2+US.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prospective controlled trials of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for cancers were evaluated. Post-hoc power was <0.80 in 30/46 trials and in 22/38 trials with positive results, indicating low quality in most trials. Unscientific endpoints, small sample sizes, and high dropout rates led to low post-hoc power that caused inter-trial heterogeneity and overestimated the therapeutic effect. The objective response rate was not a substitute for survival time for estimating the sample size and assessing the efficacy. The present data can interpret a paradox: HIFU is considered to have slighter cytotoxicity to noncancer tissues and no radiation but is frequently combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38323616What 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.