Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 1064–1065 | Cite as

Letter to the Editor Concerning “Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) Fails to Demonstrate Efficacy in a Prospective Multicenter Phase II Trial on Lung Malignancies: The ALICE Trial” by Ricke et al. 2015 (doi:10.1007/s00270-014-1049-0)

  • Johann Jakob WendlerEmail author
  • Markus Porsch
  • Frank Fischbach
  • Maciej Pech
  • Martin Schostak
  • Uwe-Bernd Liehr
Letter to the Editor
  • 270 Downloads

Dear Editor,

We would like to compliment the authors for the first controlled prospective human trial to determine the safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in lung malignancies that was stopped prematurely because of a high rate of treatment failure (69 %) [1]. We would like to supplement the discussion of IRE treatment failure by reflecting the actual discrepancy between the approval of IRE, the theoretical basis of mechanism, the current knowledge in clinical tumor studies, and the potential efficacies of IRE in different tissues. Up to now, there is only one clinical IRE system available on the market (NanoKnife® System; AngioDynamics Inc., Latham, NY). In 2007, the NanoKnife®has received a 510(k) clearance for surgical ablation of soft tissue by the US FDA and is approved for commercialization in the E.U. (CE mark for medical devices 93/42/EWG), although it has not been cleared for the treatment of any specific disease or condition, and the treatment...

Keywords

Bile Duct Transitional Cell Carcinoma Angiosarcoma Tissue Ablation Lung Malignancy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

AngioDynamics Inc. (NY, USA) supports the current IRENE study (www.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01967407) by providing the NanoKnife electroporator device and technical maintenance. The company has had no involvement in devising, writing or editing a protocol, and study conduct and will have no contentual input in presenting the results in conferences, congresses, and/or papers.

Conflict of interest

The authors Wendler Johann Jakob, Porsch Markus, Fischbach Frank, Pech Maciej, Schostak Martin, and Liehr Uwe-Bernd declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ricke J, Jürgens JH, Deschamps F, Tselikas L, Uhde K, Kosiek O, De Baere T. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) fails to demonstrate efficacy in a prospective multicenter phase II trial on lung malignancies: the ALICE trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(2):401–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edd JF, Horowitz L, Davalos RV, Mir LM, Rubinsky B. In vivo results of a new focal tissue ablation technique: irreversible electroporation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006;53(7):1409–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Golberg A, Bruinsma BG, Uygun BE, Yarmush ML. Tissue heterogeneity in structure and conductivity contribute to cell survival during irreversible electroporation ablation by “electric field sinks”. Sci Rep. 2015;5:8485. doi: 10.1038/srep08485.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubinsky B. Irreversible electroporation, Series in Biomedical Engineering. Berlin: Springer; 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-05420-4.
  5. 5.
    Choi JW, Lu DS, Osuagwu F, Raman S, Lassman C. Assessment of chronological effects of irreversible electroporation on hilar bile ducts in a porcine model. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(1):224–30. doi: 10.1007/s00270-013-0731-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wendler JJ, Pech M, Blaschke S, Porsch M, Janitzky A, Ulrich M, Dudeck O, Ricke J, Liehr UB. Angiography in the isolated perfused kidney: radiological evaluation of vascular protection in tissue ablation by nonthermal irreversible electroporation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(2):383–90. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0187-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wendler JJ, Pech M, Porsch M, Janitzky A, Fischbach F, Buhtz P, Vogler K, Hühne S, Borucki K, Strang C, Mahnkopf D, Ricke J, Liehr UB. Urinary tract effects after multifocal nonthermal irreversible electroporation of the kidney: acute and chronic monitoring by magnetic resonance imaging, intravenous urography and urinary cytology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(4):921–6. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0257-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Onik G, Mikus P, Rubinsky B. Irreversible electroporation: implications for prostate ablation. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2007;6(4):295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu Z, Zhang X, Ren P, Zhang M, Qian J. Therapeutic potential of irreversible electroporation in sarcoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12(2):177–84. doi: 10.1586/era.11.211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahmed M, International Working Group on Image-Guided Tumor Ablation, Interventional Oncology Sans Frontières Expert Panel, Technology Assessment Committee of the Society of Interventional Radiology, Standard of Practice Committee of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria—a 10-year update. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(11):1691–1705.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.08.027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann Jakob Wendler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Porsch
    • 1
  • Frank Fischbach
    • 2
  • Maciej Pech
    • 2
  • Martin Schostak
    • 1
  • Uwe-Bernd Liehr
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology and Pediatric UrologyUniversity of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations