ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Optimization of electrode position in electric field treatment for pancreatic cancer.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unraveling the dielectric heterogeneity response of cell lines under electroporation: a microfluidic single-cell on-chip system.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn electric field-based cancer treatment, the intensity of the electric field applied to the tumor depends on the position of the electrode array, directly affecting the efficacy of treatment. The present study evaluated the effects of changing the position of the electrode array on the efficacy of electric field treatment for pancreatic cancer.
methodsA 3D model was created based on computed tomography images of 13 pancreatic cancer patients. An electrode array was placed on the surface of the model at various positions, and the electric field was calculated for each. Six treatment plans were created for each patient by rotating each electrode array ± 15⁰, ± 30⁰ in the axial plane, and ± 10⁰ in the sagittal plane relative to the reference plan. The frequency was set at 150 kHz and the current density at 31 mArms/cm
resultsComparisons of the simulated plans for each patient with the reference plan showed differences of -2.61 ∼ 11.31% in the mean electric field, -7.03 ∼ 13.87% in the minimum electric field, -64.14 ∼ 13.12% in the HI, and - 24.23 ∼ 11.00% in the CI. Compared with the reference plan, the optimal plans created by changing the electrode position improved the mean electric field 7.41%, the minimum electric field 7.20%, the HI 4.57%, and the CI 8.46%.
conclusionsUse of a treatment planning system to determine the optimal placement of the electrode array based on the anatomical characteristics of each patient can improve the intensity of the electric field applied to the tumor.
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.