ArticleRadiology and oncology2025
Efficacy and safety of percutaneous microwave ablation for liver tumors using an antenna with anti-phase technology offering ultraspherical ablation.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 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.
- Efficacy and safety of cooled and uncooled microwave ablation for the treatment of parathyroid adenomas.Irish journal of medical science · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnti-phase technology, a novel advancement in microwave antennas for percutaneous liver ablations, forms more spherical ablation zones. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of microwave ablation (MWA) treatment for liver tumors using a microwave antenna equipped with anti-phase technology. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study included 92 patients (133 lesions) treated with MWA for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or liver metastases. Of these, nine patients had HCC, and 83 had metastases (46 colorectal and 37 non-colorectal metastases). Retrospective analysis was conducted on patients' age, sex, pre- and post-procedural laboratory values (white blood cell count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), tumor and ablation zone dimensions (preprocedure and post-procedure day 1 and months 1, 3, and 6), details of the single-shot MWA procedure (duration, power output), procedure-related complications, and local progression/recurrence during follow-up.
resultsThe technical success rate of MWA was 100%. Ablations were performed at a median power output of 80 watts (range: 50-100), and the mean ablation duration was 5.2 ± 2.1 minutes. Follow-up imaging revealed an ablation zone diameter-to-tumor diameter ratio of 1.63 ± 0.3. Major complications occurred in three patients (3.2%) and included liver abscess (n = 1/92), hemorrhage (n = 1/92), and pleural effusion (n = 1/92). Minor complications were observed in 29 patients (31.5%). The median follow-up time of the patients was 33 (range 10-36) months. The median disease-free survival time was 25 months (95% confidence interval: 21-27). During the 24-month follow-up, local tumor progression occurred in 39 patients (42.4%). Tumor size was identified as an independent risk factor for local progression (p = 0.012).
conclusionsThis study represents the longest follow-up duration and the largest patient cohort for the MWA treatment of liver tumors using anti-phase technology. The results demonstrated high technical success and acceptable local control and complication rates.
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.