ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2025
An Interventional Radiology Method for In Situ Assessments of Cancer Drug Response: Preclinical Development, Feasibility, and Safety.
Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of a nonsurgical interventional method for placement and retrieval of implantable microdevices (IMDs) in a rabbit tumor model. Materials and Methods This prospective preclinical feasibility and safety study was conducted from March 2022 to October 2024. Interventional IMD placement and retrieval were performed in 12 rabbits with single hindlimb VX2 tumors. Four or five IMDs were placed per animal. Each IMD delivered microdose quantities of three drugs (doxorubicin, topotecan, sunitinib) into 18 spatially distinct microscopic tumor regions over 24-48 hours. An over-the-wire biopsy procedure was used to extract the IMDs and surrounding tumor. Technical success was defined per animal as retrieval of at least one tumor region containing each of the three drugs. Overall region-level retrieval success rate was calculated as the overall percentage of drug-exposed regions retrieved successfully. Safety was determined by monitoring animals for adverse events. Procedure durations were assessed to inform clinical translation. Statistical analysis included calculation of binomial 95% CIs for success rates and summary statistics (mean ± SD) for region yield and procedure times. Results Twelve rabbits received 52 IMDs (mean, 4.3 ± 0.5 per animal) generating 936 drug-exposure sites. Technical success was 100% (12 of 12; 95% CI: 73.5, 100). Mean per animal retrieval was 50.7 regions ± 11.4 (range, 33-69), with an overall region-level success rate of 65% (608 of 936; 95% CI: 62, 68). No Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events were observed. In two animals, IMDs dislodged from the guidewire and were retained in the tumor; no symptoms developed, and no additional intervention was required (grade 1). Implantation procedure duration was 30.3 minutes ± 5.3 and retrieval procedure duration was 49.1 minutes ± 6.3. Conclusion Interventional IMD placement and retrieval in a rabbit soft tissue tumor model was technically feasible and safe. This approach demonstrated the capacity to recover multiple drug-exposed regions for in situ assessment of local drug effects.
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.