Trial reportCancer letters2025
Radiosensitization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and metastatic disease in the liver using microbubble cavitation: results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
Trial report in Cancer letters, 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.
- Ultrasound-responsive micro/nanobubbles based intelligent theranostic systems for precision tumor therapy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound triggered microbubble destruction (UTMD) has been shown to sensitize tumors to radiation. This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of using UTMD for radiosensitization in participants with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and/or metastatic disease to the liver (MDL) receiving Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization (Y90-TARE). This was a prospective single-center IRB-approved clinical trial. Participants received four contrast ultrasound sessions: 1-2 weeks prior to Y90-TARE, 1-4 h post-treatment, and 1 week and 2 weeks post-Y90-TARE. The control group consisted of 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matched historical controls participants that received Y90-TARE as part of standard-of-care. Safety was evaluated through general lab values, physiological monitoring and adverse events. Treatment response was determined by a 1-6 month CT/MRI and evaluated using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Final analysis included 15 participants in each group. There were no differences in general lab values between groups (p > 0.15). In study participants, there were no differences in physiological monitoring between pre and post UTMD sessions (p > 0.20). There was a trend toward a better response distribution in the study group compared to the control group (study group: 0 % progressive disease (0/14), 29 % participants with stable disease (4/14), 21 % participants with partial response (3/14), 50 % participants with complete response (7/14) and control group: 33 % participants with progressive disease (5/15), 27 % with stable disease (4/15), 13 % with partial response (2/15), 27 % with complete response (4/15) when evaluating long-term imaging, p = 0.06). The addition of UTMD in participants that received Y90-TARE was feasible, safe, and might deliver improved treatment response.
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.