ArticleOncology letters2026
Intensity- and time-dependent anticancer effects of alternating electric fields in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines.
Article in Oncology letters, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alternating electric fields (AEF), also known as tumor treating fields (TTFields), have emerged as a non-invasive anticancer modality; however, their clinical benefit in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) still depends heavily on prolonged daily wear time, which often limits patient adherence due to discomfort and skin irritation. Despite recent Food and Drug Administration approval of TTFields for metastatic NSCLC, the relative contributions of field intensity and exposure duration, particularly from a quantitative and dosimetric perspective, have not been systematically evaluated. In the present study, H460 and A549 NSCLC cell lines were exposed to three TTFields regimens combining different intensity-duration configurations (0.4 V/cm for 24 h, 0.8 V/cm for 6 h and 1.6 V/cm for 3 h), and short-(48 h) and long-term (7-day) responses were assessed. TTFields significantly reduced cell viability, clonogenic survival and migratory capacity while increasing apoptotic susceptibility. Notably, treatment conditions with different intensity-duration combinations produced partially overlapping inhibitory effects, suggesting that overall exposure may contribute to the observed responses. These findings indicated that NSCLC cells respond to TTFields in a dosimetry-dependent manner and support the existence of an intensity-duration trade-off. The present study provided preliminary evidence for flexible TTFields exposure strategies while underscoring the need for energy-matched and
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.