ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Stereotactic two-needle irreversible electroporation of liver tumors near critical structures: a proof-of-concept study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIrreversible electroporation (IRE) is a non-thermal ablation technique suitable for tumors near critical structures, but its widespread use is limited by technical complexity and the need for multiple electrodes. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a stereotactic percutaneous two-needle IRE approach for small liver tumors in anatomically challenging locations. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, 17 consecutive patients with 18 primary or secondary liver tumors (≤ 2.0 cm) adjacent to critical anatomical structures underwent CT-navigated stereotactic two-needle IRE between December 2021 and May 2025. Ablation was performed with a high-dose protocol (2 × 90 pulses, 90 µs, > 20 A). Primary endpoints were primary technique efficacy (PTE) and local tumor progression (LTP); secondary endpoints included complications. Needle placement was assessed through geometric analysis.
resultsPTE was obtained in 17/18 tumors (94.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 72.7-99.9%). At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, LTP occurred in 1/18 tumors (5.6%, 95% CI: 0.1-27.3%). No complications or procedure-related mortality were observed. Geometric analysis showed high accuracy of stereotactic needle placement, while treatment failure was associated with suboptimal geometry.
conclusionStereotactic percutaneous two-needle IRE seems to be technically feasible with a favorable safety profile for small liver tumors in anatomically challenging locations and may offer a simplified alternative to multielectrode approaches. However, given the small, retrospective single-center design, these findings are preliminary and require prospective multicenter validation to establish oncologic effectiveness and generalizability. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Stereotactic two-needle irreversible electroporation offered a simplified, safe, and effective alternative to multielectrode ablation, potentially broadening treatment options for liver tumors near critical structures and improving accessibility, reproducibility, and outcomes in interventional oncology. KEY POINTS: First systematic clinical evaluation of stereotactic two-needle irreversible electroporation (IRE) for liver tumors. Two-needle configuration with high-dose protocol simplifies IRE compared with standard multielectrode approaches. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates high efficacy and absence of complications in small liver tumors near critical structures. Two-needle IRE may broaden clinical applicability in anatomically challenging locations.
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.