| Title |
First clinical experience with a dedicated MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound system for breast cancer ablation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-016-4222-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura G. Merckel, Floor M. Knuttel, Roel Deckers, Thijs van Dalen, Gerald Schubert, Nicky H. G. M. Peters, Teun Weits, Paul J. van Diest, Willem P. Th. M. Mali, Paul H. H. B. Vaessen, Joost M. H. H. van Gorp, Chrit T. W. Moonen, Lambertus W. Bartels, Maurice A. A. J. van den Bosch |
| Abstract |
To assess the safety and feasibility of MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation in breast cancer patients using a dedicated breast platform. Patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer underwent partial tumour ablation prior to surgical resection. MR-HIFU ablation was performed using proton resonance frequency shift MR thermometry and an MR-HIFU system specifically designed for breast tumour ablation. The presence and extent of tumour necrosis was assessed by histopathological analysis of the surgical specimen. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between sonication parameters, temperature increase and size of tumour necrosis at histopathology. Ten female patients underwent MR-HIFU treatment. No skin redness or burns were observed in any of the patients. No correlation was found between the applied energy and the temperature increase. In six patients, tumour necrosis was observed with a maximum diameter of 3-11 mm. In these patients, the number of targeted locations was equal to the number of areas with tumour necrosis. A good correlation was found between the applied energy and the size of tumour necrosis at histopathology (Pearson = 0.76, p = 0.002). Our results show that MR-HIFU ablation with the dedicated breast system is safe and results in histopathologically proven tumour necrosis. • MR-HIFU ablation with the dedicated breast system is safe and feasible • In none of the patients was skin redness or burns observed • No correlation was found between the applied energy and the temperature increase • The correlation between applied energy and size of tumour necrosis was good. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 23% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 19 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 20% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 12 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,438,457
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#2,916
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,802
of 397,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#31
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 397,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.