Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39526164›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical physics

Agar-based Phantom for Evaluating Targeting of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Systems for Breast Ablation.

Antria Filippou, Christakis Damianou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Antria FilippouDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Informatics, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.
Christakis DamianouDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Informatics, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Phantoms are often utilized for the preclinical evaluation of novel high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) systems, serving as valuable tools for validating efficacy. In the present study, the feasibility of a homogeneous agar-based breast-shaped phantom as a tool for the preclinical evaluation of HIFU systems dedicated to breast cancer was assessed. Specifically, the effect of the increased phantom curvature on temperature increase was examined through sonications executed on two sides having varied curvatures. Materials and Methods: Assessment was performed utilizing a 1.1 MHz focused transducer. Sonications on the two phantom sides were executed at varied acoustical power in both a laboratory setting and inside a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Sonications were independently performed on two identical phantoms for repeatability purposes. Results: Temperature changes between 7.1°C-34.3°C and 5.1°C-21.5°C were recorded within the decreased and increased curvature sides, respectively, for acoustical power of 3.75-10 W. High-power sonications created lesions which were approximately symmetrically formed around the focal point at the decreased curvature side, while they were shifted away from the focal point at the increased curvature side. Conclusions: The present findings indicate that increased curvature of the breast phantom results in deformed focal shapes and decreased temperatures induced at the focal area, thus suggesting treatment correction requirements in the form of focus control or accurate robotic movement. The developed breast-shaped phantom can be utilized as an evaluation tool of HIFU systems dedicated to breast cancer since it can visually verify the efficacy of any system.

Indexed as

Breastcancerhigh-intensity focused ultrasoundphantom

Identifiers

PMID39526164
PMCPMC11548075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.