Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42182708›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026

The role of pulsed electric field therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review of a novel minimally invasive intervention.

Illaa Smesseim, Phillip Perez, Sebastian Fernandez-Bussy, Daniel H Sterman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Illaa SmesseimDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Phillip PerezNYU Pulmonary Oncology Research Team (NYU PORT), Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Sebastian Fernandez-BussyDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Sleep Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Daniel H StermanNYU Pulmonary Oncology Research Team (NYU PORT), Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of lung carcinoma cases and is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, leading to poor prognosis. Local tumor ablation is an emerging treatment option; however, thermal ablation techniques, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or microwave ablation (MWA), can have many adverse events, such as a negative impact on the extracellular matrix (ECM) architecture, promoting tumor progression. Pulsed electric field (PEF) therapy is a non-thermal modality that induces electrostimulatory pulses, which can preserve the ECM architecture while stimulating anti-tumor immune responses. This narrative review evaluates the safety, efficacy, and immunomodulatory potential of PEF therapy in NSCLC. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, UpToDate, and the Cochrane Library through October 1, 2025. Eligible studies included adult patients (≥18 years) with histologically confirmed NSCLC treated with PEF. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modalities, adverse events, and outcomes. Key Content and Findings: Eleven studies (249 patients; 4 prospective, 7 retrospective) were included. Median patient age ranged from 53.5 to 72 years. PEF was delivered percutaneously (7 studies) or bronchoscopically (4 studies). PEF monotherapy was reported in eight studies, while PEF in combination with other therapies (stereotactic body radiotherapy, systemic therapy, or surgery) was studied in three papers. Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate; pneumothorax was the most common complication and occurred mainly in percutaneously treated patients (0.6-33.3%). Severe adverse events were rare, and no treatment-related mortality occurred. Treatment responses were heterogeneous: complete responses (CRs) occurred in 16-40% of patients in early-phase trials, with stable disease (SD) in 36-50%. In a propensity-matched cohort, PEF therapy for stage IV NSCLC showed superior 1-year progression-free survival (PFS; 63.2% Conclusions: PEF may play a role in stimulating an anti-tumor response and represents a promising, safe, non-thermal ablation modality for NSCLC treatment. It preserves ECM integrity while inducing local and systemic immunomodulatory effects. Early clinical evidence suggests potential efficacy. Nevertheless, randomized controlled trials are required to confirm clinical benefit and identify the patient populations most likely to benefit from PEF therapy.

Indexed as

ablationnon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)pulsed electric field ablation (PEF ablation)Pulsed electric field (PEF)

Identifiers

PMID42182708
PMCPMC13190115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.