ArticleUltrasonics2026
Transient tumor perfusion loss: evaluating the spatial and temporal dynamics of blood flow changes induced by ultrasound cavitation treatments.
Article in Ultrasonics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound‑mediated microbubble cavitation can induce transient tumor perfusion loss (TTPL), yet the pressure‑dependent magnitude and short‑timescale recovery of this effect remains poorly defined. This study investigated how acoustic pressure governs both the extent and duration of TTPL following a single cavitation exposure. Subcutaneous hepatocellular carcinoma tumors (HEPG2 human cell line) in athymic nude mice (n = 15) received a 1‑second cavitation treatment at peak‑negative pressures of 1.4, 2.8, or 4.1 MPa. Due to the small f-number of the transducer employed, the estimated average peak negative pressures of these conditions within the tumor were 0.6, 1.1, and 1.7 MPa respectively. Tumor perfusion was evaluated using contrast‑enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) immediately (within 1 min), 5, 15, 30, and 60 min after treatment. Perfused area loss was quantified with a maximum intensity projection time‑area curve (MIP‑TAC) metric. Cavitation activity was assessed using passive cavitation detection (PCD), and histology evaluated acute tissue effects. Low acoustic pressure produced only partial perfusion loss with full recovery within 5 min. Moderate acoustic pressure induced substantial TTPL followed by near complete recovery by 15 min. High‑pressure treatment caused complete perfusion loss in all tumors, with initial recovery at 15 min but also with a subsequent decline over the hour. Elevated broadband energy recorded with PCD confirmed inertial cavitation in the moderate and high conditions. Histology revealed damage‑associated staining in 1/5 moderate‑pressure tumors and 3/5 high‑pressure tumors, consistent with pressure‑dependent mechanical injury, possibly contributing to the gradual decline in tumor perfusion observed after initial rebound in the high-pressure condition.
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.