ArticleCancers2026
Pulsed Electric Field Ablation for Advanced Lung and Oligometastatic Disease: A Retrospective Study of 32 Consecutive Patients in a Community Hospital Setting.
Article in Cancers, 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPulsed Electric Field (PEF) therapy is a non-thermal ablation technique that induces immunogenic cell death through high-voltage, short-duration electrical pulses. This may enhance antitumor immunity by releasing intact tumor antigens and potentially generating abscopal effects. We report early outcomes in 32 patients with primary lung cancer or lung oligometastases treated with PEF at a community hospital, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 180.5 (158-207) days.
methodsThis retrospective study collected demographics, cancer type, treatment response, and outcomes for patients undergoing PEF ablation. Tumor response was assessed using Sum of Longest Dimensions per RECIST 1.1 to classify progressive disease, stable disease, partial response, or complete response. Volumetric changes were additionally analyzed using RECIST 1.1 percentage thresholds applied to change in volume.
resultsAt initial 3-month follow-up, 26 of 32 patients demonstrated stable disease, partial response, or complete response, suggesting an 81.25% disease control rate/clinical benefit rate among this cohort. Among patients with Stage III-IV disease, 27.6% (8/29) showed radiographic evidence of a possible abscopal response. At 6 months, 24 of 32 patients remained alive and evaluable, with 62.5% (20/32) maintaining stable disease, partial response, or complete response.
conclusionsDespite patients having progressive disease on systemic therapy before PEF, early outcomes post-ablation suggest favorable local control and potential immunologic benefit. Patients with early-stage disease not receiving systemic therapy also showed excellent local response. Patients tolerated therapy very well. Clinical benefit was observed in 81.25% of patients at 3 months and 62.5% at 6 months, with radiographic evidence of possible abscopal responses in 27.6% of advanced-stage patients, supporting further exploration of the immunogenic potential of PEF demonstrated in preclinical and emerging clinical studies.
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.