ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Evaluating the immune response in a murine cancer model between irreversible electroporation and an advanced biphasic pulsed electric field technology.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomaterial-Integrated Electroporation for Therapeutic Delivery: From Gene Editing to Tumor Ablation and Immune Modulation.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
- Article
- Six-Month Local Control Rates and Immune Responses After Pulsed Electric Field Ablation in Metastatic Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intoduction: Non-thermal ablation, including irreversible electroporation (IRE) and Aliya®, an advanced biphasic pulsed electric field (aPEF) technology, have emerged as effective tumor ablation approaches, particularly in sensitive anatomical locations. These methods not only ablate tumors but also may stimulate immune responses. Methods: This study compares the immunological impact of biphasic aPEF and IRE in a murine breast cancer model. Equal-sized tumor ablations were performed using both technologies, followed by analysis of cytokine profiles, immune cell populations, tumor growth, and overall survival. Results: aPEF induced a differentiated tumor microenvironment four days post-ablation compared to IRE, with greater intratumoral infiltration of T-cells, B-cells, increased M1 macrophages, and decreased myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Analysis of systemic circulating immunocytes 14 days post-ablation showed elevated levels of B-cells, CD4 and CD8 T-cells (including memory subpopulations) in the aPEF-ablated groups. aPEF also resulted in better control of ablated and contralateral tumor growth, leading to improved median survival. Discussion: This study demonstrates that the specific biphasic aPEF system evaluated here induces a stronger immunostimulatory effect and superior tumor control compared to IRE, supporting the notion that not all non-thermal ablation is equal, and each may be better suited to different objectives. Further clinical investigations into the potential for better clinical outcomes from this specific advanced pulsed electric field technology is warranted.
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.