The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Safety and early efficacy of irreversible electroporation for hepatic tumors in proximity to vital structures
Abstract
Introduction: Irreversible electroporation (IRE) has shown promise for ablation of lesions in proximity to vital structures in the preclinical setting. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IRE for hepatic tumors in the clinical setting. Methods: An IRB approved prospective registry of patients undergoing IRE for hepatic tumors over a 2‐year period. Factors analyzed included patient and tumor characteristics, treatment related complications, and local recurrence free survival (LRFS) for ablated lesions. LRFS was calculated according to Kaplan–Meier, with secondary analyses stratified by procedural approach (laparotomy, laparoscopy, and percutaneous) and tumor histology. Results: There were 44 patients undergoing 48 total IRE procedures, 20 colorectal mets, 14 hepatocellular, and 10 other metastatsis. Initial success was achieved in 46 (100%) treatments. Five patients had 9 adverse events, with all complications resolving within 30 days. LRFS at 3, 6, and 12 months was 97.4%, 94.6%, and 59.5%. There was a trend toward higher recurrence rates for tumors over 4 cm (HR 3.236, 95% CI: 0.585–17.891; P = 0.178). Conclusions: IRE appears to be a safe treatment for hepatic tumors in proximity to vital structures. Further prospective evaluation is needed to determine the optimal effectiveness of IRE in relation to size and technique for IRE of the liver. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013;107:544–549. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Cell Injury by Electric Forces
LEE, R. C. (2006) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1363.007 · Cited by 100
Cited by
Wahl, D. R., Stenmark, M. H., Tao, Y., Pollom, E. L., Caoili, E. M., Lawrence, T. S., Schipper, M. J., & Feng, M. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.61.4925 · Cited by 567
Martin, R. C. G., Kwon, D., Chalikonda, S., Sellers, M., Kotz, E., Scoggins, C., McMasters, K. M., & Watkins, K. (2015) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001441 · Cited by 417
Self-citationA Review of Basic to Clinical Studies of Irreversible Electroporation Therapy
Jiang, C., Davalos, R. V., & Bischof, J. C. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2014.2367543 · Cited by 332
Irreversible electroporation (NanoKnife) in cancer treatment
Jourabchi, N., Beroukhim, K., Tafti, B. A., Kee, S. T., & Lee, E. W. (2014) · Gastrointestinal Intervention · doi:10.1016/j.gii.2014.02.002 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Cannon, R., Ellis, S., Hayes, D., Narayanan, G., & Martin, R. C. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Surgical Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-10-22
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 544-549
- ISSN
- 0022-4790 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9098
- OpenAlex
- W1931310966
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Safety and early efficacy of irreversible electroporation for hepatic tumors in proximity to vital structures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jso.23280
- The paper
- Cannon, R., Ellis, S., Hayes, D., Narayanan, G., & Martin, R. C. G. (2013). Safety and early efficacy of irreversible electroporation for hepatic tumors in proximity to vital structures. Journal of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23280
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.