ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Quantitative analysis of lung microwave ablation zone volume and shape.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe quantified volume and shape variability in lung microwave ablation (LMWA) zones, comparing them with expected ablation zones, exploring the correlation with tissue contraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively included patients who underwent LMWA between January 2015 and January 2019. Exclusion criteria were ablations with multiple burns/probes, overlapping ablation zones, or indistinguishable background lung parenchyma. Ablation zones were oriented along an applicator-centric coordinate system. We used Pyradiomics to generate volumes and the Euler characteristic transform for three-dimensional shape space analysis. Wilcoxon paired signed-rank tests compared the expected versus the actual ablation zone. Tissue contraction was quantified using paired anatomical landmarks before and after computed tomography scans.
resultsWe included 111 ablations in 72 patients (31 male, 41 female; median age 59). Median ablation power was 65 watts (range 20‒65), median ablation time 5 min (range 1‒10). Total energy correlated with volume and width (p = 0.007, p = 0.003, respectively). Ablation volume did not differ from vendor predictions (p = 0.452), whereas length (p < 0.001) and maximum width (p < 0.001) were greater than predicted. Ablation shapes were more elongated (p < 0.001), less spherical (p < 0.001), asymmetric (wider in back than in front, p = 0.007), and diverged from expected ellipsoids. There was no correlation between tissue contraction and volume, power, or time.
conclusionThe provided vendor model offers a reasonable estimate of mean ablation volume, but wide variability in volume and shape necessitates a more bespoke method of ablation zone prediction. Tissue contraction did not correlate with ablation zone variability. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High variability in actual ablation volume, shape, length, width, and position along the needle and divergence from ellipsoids necessitates the development of improved ablation zone prediction models. KEY POINTS: While median ablation volumes do not differ from vendor predictions, ablation length (p < 0.001) and maximum width (p < 0.001) are greater than vendor predictions, and volumes are variable. Ablation shapes diverge from ellipsoids, are more elongated (p < 0.001), less spherical (p < 0.001), and asymmetric (p = 0.007). Tissue contraction does not account for the volume variability of ablation zones.
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.