Combination of Electrochemotherapy with Radiotherapy: A Comprehensive, Systematic, PRISMA-Compliant Review of Efficacy and Potential Radiosensitizing Effects in Tumor Control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) and electrochemotherapy (ECT) are established local treatments for cancer. While effective, both therapies have limitations, especially in treating bulky and poorly oxygenated tumors. ECT has emerged as a promising palliative treatment, raising interest in exploring its combination with RT to enhance tumor response. However, the potential benefits and challenges of combining these treatments remain unclear. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane libraries were searched. Studies were screened and selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten studies were included, comprising in vitro and in vivo experiments. Different tumor types were treated with ECT alone or in combination with RT. ECT plus RT demonstrated superior tumor response compared to that under single therapies or other combinations, regardless of the cytotoxic agent and RT dose. However, no study demonstrated a clear superadditive effect in cell survival curves, suggesting inconclusive evidence of specific ECT-induced radiosensitization. Toxicity data were limited. In conclusion, the combination of ECT and RT consistently improved tumor response compared to that with individual therapies, supporting the potential benefit of their combination. However, evidence for a specific ECT-induced radiosensitization effect is currently lacking. Additional investigations are necessary to elucidate the potential benefits of this combination therapy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it