ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
A new method for optimal placement of tumor treating fields electrodes.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) provide a noninvasive treatment option for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. While electrode placement is considered important for treatment efficacy, current clinical planning relies on a proprietary and undisclosed software (NovoTAL). This study investigates a new computational approach for optimizing TTFields electrode placement and compares it with the current clinical standard. Methods: We developed a computational pipeline integrating patient-specific anatomical data to optimize electrode configurations in five representative glioblastoma cases spanning diverse tumor locations and sizes. Two optimization strategies were investigated: one maximizing electric field intensity at the tumor and another increasing coverage of the surrounding brain while maintaining tumor intensity. Results were compared with electrode placements generated by NovoTAL. Additional simulations with artificial tumors assessed the effects of tumor size and location. Results: Optimized electrode placements increased tumor electric field intensity by 18%-34% compared with the clinical standard. Coverage-weighted optimizations achieved broader field coverage with minimal reduction in tumor intensity. Smaller and surface-adjacent tumors benefited most from optimization. Extensive randomized placement analyses demonstrated the superior performance of the optimized configurations. Artificial tumor models showed consistent improvements across a range of tumor locations and sizes. Conclusions: Personalized optimization of TTFields electrode placement improved simulated electric field metrics within tumors and adjacent brain regions compared with the current clinical planning approach. These findings support the potential of patient-specific computational planning and the future development of adaptive, automated TTFields planning strategies. The clinical significance of the observed field improvements remains to be established in prospective 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.