Irreversible electroporation in renal tumours: A systematic review of safety and early oncological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review the safety and early oncological outcomes of irreversible electroporation (IRE), a novel non-thermal ablation technique, in small renal masses (SRMs). Following PROSPERO registration (CRD42020197943), a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases according to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Critical appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of 224 articles screened, 10 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 83 patients were identified. Except for one cohort study ( n = 41), the remaining studies were case series of n < 10. Follow up was <12 months in 7/10 articles (range 3–34 months). About 10/10 articles reported safety outcomes. There were no 30-day mortalities. The most frequently reported adverse events were transient haematuria (11/83) and asymptomatic perirenal haematomas (7/83). About 62/63 patients with reported length of stay were discharged within 24 h. No significant long-term changes in renal function were reported. About 7/10 articles reported oncological outcomes. Only one article assessed histopathological outcomes, whilst the remaining studies used cross-sectional imaging modalities to assess efficacy, recurrence or disease progression. About 4/7 patients with histopathology outcomes, showed complete response (CR). About 43/55 patients with radiological outcomes showed CR. No mortalities were reported due to SRMs. These initial findings support IRE as safe and feasible in managing SRMs. However, results from larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate oncological outcomes and compare these with other ablation methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".