ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Configuring thermal ablation volumes for treatment of distinct tumor shapes: a repeatability study using a robotic approach.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In the current clinical practice of thermal ablation treatment for liver tumors, achieving consistent and effective clinical outcomes across tumors of varying shapes, sizes and locations remains challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of a novel robotic approach for configurable ablation of distinct tumor shapes and compare it to the standard ablation technique for creating ellipsoidal ablation volumes. Materials and methods: The repeatability was evaluated in terms of width variability in created ablation volumes. Using a robotic navigation platform, custom ablation profiles configured with power, time, and distance parameters were designed to create four distinct ablation shapes. The profiles were applied for microwave ablation in a tissue-mimicking liver model. For comparison of ablation shape variability, six standard ellipsoidal shapes were created using the standard ablation technique by configuring power and time parameters. For each sample, the resulting ablation area was segmented, and the resulting shape width and length were calculated at the measurement points. Width variability was calculated as the median of the absolute pairwise differences in width at each measurement point, and Results: All tissue-mimicking samples were successfully ablated using both configurable (n = 48) and standard ablation technique (n = 35). Study findings revealed noninferiority regarding repeatability of created ablation shapes using the robotic platform for configurable ablation, compared to created standard ellipsoidal ablation shapes (p < 0.001, 95% CI ≤ -0.05 mm, Δ = -0.22 mm). Median repeatability of created configurable shapes was 1.00 mm, and for standard shapes 1.22 mm. Maximal repeatability for both groups was below 3 mm. Conclusion: The repeatability of configurable ablation shapes was observed to be noninferior to the standard ablation shapes. Achieving configurable ablation volumes underscores the potential to advance personalization of thermal ablation treatment and broaden its applicability to distinct tumor cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.