SynthesisEuropean radiology2026
Electrochemotherapy in pediatrics: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Artificial intelligence-enabled MRI surveillance of prostate cancer: integrating PRECISE v2, PI-QUAL, and longitudinal biomarkers-a narrative review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically review the available evidence on electrochemotherapy (ECT) in pediatric patients, focusing on indications, treatment parameters, efficacy, and safety. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024575588). MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies reporting the use of ECT in patients ≤ 18 years were included. Data extraction covered patient demographics, pathologies, electroporation parameters, agents used, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I.
resultsOut of 1579 screened studies, 15 met the inclusion criteria, reporting at least 127 pediatric patients. Age was provided for 98 patients (pooled mean 8.5 years, range 0-17) and sex for 108 (58 female, 50 male). Two studies described tumors; the remainder reported vascular anomalies (VAs). Reversible electroporation with intralesional or intravenous bleomycin was the most common protocol. Complete response rates for tumors were 97-100%. Pooled volume reductions in VAs ranged from 52% to 100%. Most complications were minor, though serious events occurred, including sciatic nerve injury, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and airway compromise. Methodological quality was low, with small sample sizes and inconsistent reporting of multiple parameters.
conclusionECT is in the early stages of development but shows promising efficacy as a treatment for tumors and VAs in children. Preliminary data suggest favorable responses in children, although direct comparison with adults is limited. Further research is essential to establish standardized treatment guidelines, optimize safety, and define the role of ECT within pediatric oncology and interventional radiology. A minimum reporting dataset is proposed. KEY POINTS: Question Explain the unmet need/clinical problem your study addresses. What is the current evidence regarding indications, efficacy, safety, and treatment parameters of ECT in pediatric patients? Findings Fifteen studies, including 127 children, report high response rates for tumors and VAs, but evidence is limited by small cohorts and heterogeneous reporting. Clinical relevance ECT shows promise as a minimally invasive treatment for selected pediatric tumors and VAs, but standardized protocols and large prospective studies are required before broader clinical adoption in pediatric oncology and interventional radiology.
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.