Outlook for the use of focused shock waves and pulsed electric fields in the complex treatment of malignant neoplasms.

Conference proceedings : ... Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference · 2006 · Harm · Very low evidence

← Research stream
HarmVery low evidencePaper 3459

In vitro experiments on mouse ascitic tumor cells reported that synchronous application of microsecond-range electric fields (1–7 kV/cm) and shock waves (pressure up to 100 MPa) increased the efficiency of forming irreversible membrane pores compared with non…

Study snapshot

PublicationConference proceedings : ... Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference · 2006
Study typein_vitro
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingVery low

Abstract

The experimental studies the synchronous action of electric field microsecond range with amplitude within the range of 1-7 kV/sm and shock waves with pressure before 100 MPa on cells membrane permeability of the mouse's ascitic tumors in vitro have shown the intensification the efficiency of the forming the irreversible pores under synchronous action. Thereby, enabling the electric field in the compression phase of shock wave pulse which can essentially reduce the electric field intensity required for breakdown cell membrane. In usual condition at amplitude of electric field, specified above, electric breakdown membrane carries basically reversible nature. At the same time in the pressure field tension phase of shock-wave pulse reversible pores, created by electric field, can grow before sizes, under which wholeness membrane is not restored. Under simultaneous action on cellular suspension the shock wave and electric field with moderate intensity cells survival is reduced in 5 once in contrast with occuring at different time's action, and in 10 once in contrast with checking. The most sensitive to influence by under study fields are cells in phase of the syntheses DNA, preparation to fission and in phase of the mitosis. Thereby, continuation of the studies on use synchronous action shock waves and pulsed electric fields in complex treatment of the tumors introduces perspective.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typein_vitro
Effect directionharm
PopulationMouse ascitic tumor cells (cellular suspension) in vitro
Sample sizeNot supplied
Exposuremicrosecond range
Evidence strengthVery lowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

In vitro experiments on mouse ascitic tumor cells reported that synchronous application of microsecond-range electric fields (1–7 kV/cm) and shock waves (pressure up to 100 MPa) increased the efficiency of forming irreversible membrane pores compared with non-synchronous exposure. The authors report reduced cell survival with simultaneous shock wave + moderate-intensity electric field compared with different-time application and compared with control, and note greater sensitivity in cells during DNA synthesis/pre-division and mitosis.

Outcomes measured

  • Cell membrane permeability
  • Irreversible pore formation (electroporation)
  • Reversible pore formation
  • Cell survival
  • Cell-cycle phase sensitivity (DNA synthesis, preparation to fission, mitosis)

Limitations

  • Conference proceedings format; methodological details are limited in the abstract
  • Sample size and statistical methods are not reported
  • In vitro model (mouse ascitic tumor cells) may not generalize to in vivo or clinical settings
  • Exposure parameters beyond amplitude/pressure (e.g., number of pulses, timing details) are not fully described
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "in_vitro",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "pulsed electric fields (microsecond range) with shock waves",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "microsecond range"
  },
  "population": "Mouse ascitic tumor cells (cellular suspension) in vitro",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cell membrane permeability",
    "Irreversible pore formation (electroporation)",
    "Reversible pore formation",
    "Cell survival",
    "Cell-cycle phase sensitivity (DNA synthesis, preparation to fission, mitosis)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In vitro experiments on mouse ascitic tumor cells reported that synchronous application of microsecond-range electric fields (1–7 kV/cm) and shock waves (pressure up to 100 MPa) increased the efficiency of forming irreversible membrane pores compared with non-synchronous exposure. The authors report reduced cell survival with simultaneous shock wave + moderate-intensity electric field compared with different-time application and compared with control, and note greater sensitivity in cells during DNA synthesis/pre-division and mitosis.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Conference proceedings format; methodological details are limited in the abstract",
    "Sample size and statistical methods are not reported",
    "In vitro model (mouse ascitic tumor cells) may not generalize to in vivo or clinical settings",
    "Exposure parameters beyond amplitude/pressure (e.g., number of pulses, timing details) are not fully described"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "very_low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "pulsed electric fields",
    "electroporation",
    "shock waves",
    "cell membrane permeability",
    "mouse ascitic tumor",
    "in vitro",
    "irreversible pores",
    "cell survival",
    "cancer treatment"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1109/iembs.2006.260701
PubMed: 17946761

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library