ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Focused ultrasound for blood-brain barrier opening in brain tumor patients: Technical nuances.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Focused ultrasound (FUS) is making rapid advances in the field of neurological sciences. While proven effective for tremor, pain and dystonia, FUS hold promises in experimental applications like blood-brain barrier opening (BBBO). BBBO is an emerging non-invasive option for intracranial brain tumor treatments by enhancing drug delivery and enabling liquid biopsies. Clinical trials underscore the need for consistent use of FUS for BBBO, which requires sophisticated facilities and standardized protocols to ensure efficacy and reproducibility. This manuscript outlines a single-center experience using MR-guided FUS (MRgFUS) for BBBO in patients with glioblastoma, incorporating technical insights and describing the evolution of a workflow mirroring an ongoing learning curve. Methods: We developed an optimized protocol that includes comprehensive pre-procedural evaluations, a patient preparation process designed to minimize discomfort, and a sedation protocol utilizing dexmedetomidine, presented as a technical note involving 4 patients. The procedures were conducted using the Exablate Neuro 4000 Type 2 system, with MRI providing precise targeting and monitoring. Results: Our optimized protocol significantly enhanced patient comfort and reduced procedure times. Employing a large treatment envelope and a 64-spot grid allowed for near-total brain coverage, minimizing the effort for pre-planning and reducing sonication time. Optimized MRI protocol contributed to the reduction in duration and confirmed successful BBBO, indicated by specific imaging signs and the resolution of these effects without any clinical complications. Conclusion: The protocol we developed for MRgFUS-BBBO offers substantial improvements in terms of procedure efficiency, imaging quality, and patient comfort. This approach could be adopted in other FUS treatment settings to optimize workflows, reduce procedure times, and improve patient outcomes.
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.