↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation for the ablation of renal masses: a prospective, human, in-vivo study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation for the ablation of renal masses: a prospective, human, in-vivo study protocol
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1189-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter GK Wagstaff, Daniel M de Bruin, Patricia J Zondervan, C Dilara Savci Heijink, Marc RW Engelbrecht, Otto M van Delden, Ton G van Leeuwen, Hessel Wijkstra, Jean JMCH de la Rosette, M Pilar Laguna Pes

Abstract

Electroporation is a novel treatment technique utilizing electric pulses, traveling between two or more electrodes, to ablate targeted tissue. The first in human studies have proven the safety of IRE for the ablation of renal masses. However the efficacy of IRE through histopathological examination of an ablated renal tumour has not yet been studied. Before progressing to a long-term IRE follow-up study it is vital to have pathological confirmation of the efficacy of the technique. Furthermore, follow-up after IRE ablation requires a validated imaging modality. The primary objectives of this study are the safety and the efficacy of IRE ablation of renal masses. The secondary objectives are the efficacy of MRI and CEUS in the imaging of ablation result. 10 patients, age ≥ 18 years, presenting with a solid enhancing mass, who are candidates for radical nephrectomy will undergo IRE ablation 4 weeks prior to radical nephrectomy. MRI and CEUS imaging will be performed at baseline, one week and four weeks post IRE. After radical nephrectomy, pathological examination will be performed to evaluate IRE ablation success. The only way to truly assess short-term (4 weeks) ablation success is by histopathology of a resection specimen. In our opinion this trial will provide essential knowledge on the safety and efficacy of IRE of renal masses, guiding future research of this promising ablative technique. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02298608 . Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL44785.018.13.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Engineering 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,471,842
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,066
of 8,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,956
of 262,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#59
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.