Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate

Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan [verfasserIn] Cornelis, Francois [verfasserIn] Mashni, Joseph [verfasserIn] Takaki, Haruyuki [verfasserIn] Durack, Jeremy C. [verfasserIn] Solomon, Stephen B. [verfasserIn] Coleman, Jonathan A. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	Computer simulation Prostate Ablation Irreversible electroporation

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: SpringerPlus - London : Biomed Central, 2012, 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:5 ; year:2016 ; number:1 ; day:29 ; month:02

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0

Katalog-ID:	SPR032777299

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR032777299
003	DE-627
005	20220111205119.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR032777299
035			\|a (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 600 \|q ASE
100	1		\|a Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.
650		4	\|a Computer simulation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Prostate \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Ablation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Irreversible electroporation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Cornelis, Francois \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Mashni, Joseph \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Takaki, Haruyuki \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Durack, Jeremy C. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Solomon, Stephen B. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Coleman, Jonathan A. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t SpringerPlus \|d London : Biomed Central, 2012 \|g 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. \|w (DE-627)718615298 \|w (DE-600)2661116-8 \|x 2193-1801 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:5 \|g year:2016 \|g number:1 \|g day:29 \|g month:02
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 5 \|j 2016 \|e 1 \|b 29 \|c 02

Indexfelder

author_variant	g s gs f c fc j m jm h t ht j c d jc jcd s b s sb sbs j a c ja jac
matchkey_str	article:21931801:2016----::oprsnfbaineetnrmgnwtcmuesmltoetmtdramnznfloigrees
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 doi (DE-627)SPR032777299 (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 600 ASE Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan verfasserin aut Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients. Computer simulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Prostate (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ablation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Irreversible electroporation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cornelis, Francois verfasserin aut Mashni, Joseph verfasserin aut Takaki, Haruyuki verfasserin aut Durack, Jeremy C. verfasserin aut Solomon, Stephen B. verfasserin aut Coleman, Jonathan A. verfasserin aut Enthalten in SpringerPlus London : Biomed Central, 2012 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. (DE-627)718615298 (DE-600)2661116-8 2193-1801 nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 1 29 02
spelling	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 doi (DE-627)SPR032777299 (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 600 ASE Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan verfasserin aut Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients. Computer simulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Prostate (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ablation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Irreversible electroporation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cornelis, Francois verfasserin aut Mashni, Joseph verfasserin aut Takaki, Haruyuki verfasserin aut Durack, Jeremy C. verfasserin aut Solomon, Stephen B. verfasserin aut Coleman, Jonathan A. verfasserin aut Enthalten in SpringerPlus London : Biomed Central, 2012 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. (DE-627)718615298 (DE-600)2661116-8 2193-1801 nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 1 29 02
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 doi (DE-627)SPR032777299 (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 600 ASE Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan verfasserin aut Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients. Computer simulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Prostate (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ablation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Irreversible electroporation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cornelis, Francois verfasserin aut Mashni, Joseph verfasserin aut Takaki, Haruyuki verfasserin aut Durack, Jeremy C. verfasserin aut Solomon, Stephen B. verfasserin aut Coleman, Jonathan A. verfasserin aut Enthalten in SpringerPlus London : Biomed Central, 2012 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. (DE-627)718615298 (DE-600)2661116-8 2193-1801 nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 1 29 02
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 doi (DE-627)SPR032777299 (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 600 ASE Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan verfasserin aut Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients. Computer simulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Prostate (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ablation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Irreversible electroporation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cornelis, Francois verfasserin aut Mashni, Joseph verfasserin aut Takaki, Haruyuki verfasserin aut Durack, Jeremy C. verfasserin aut Solomon, Stephen B. verfasserin aut Coleman, Jonathan A. verfasserin aut Enthalten in SpringerPlus London : Biomed Central, 2012 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. (DE-627)718615298 (DE-600)2661116-8 2193-1801 nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 1 29 02
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 doi (DE-627)SPR032777299 (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 600 ASE Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan verfasserin aut Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients. Computer simulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Prostate (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ablation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Irreversible electroporation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cornelis, Francois verfasserin aut Mashni, Joseph verfasserin aut Takaki, Haruyuki verfasserin aut Durack, Jeremy C. verfasserin aut Solomon, Stephen B. verfasserin aut Coleman, Jonathan A. verfasserin aut Enthalten in SpringerPlus London : Biomed Central, 2012 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. (DE-627)718615298 (DE-600)2661116-8 2193-1801 nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 1 29 02
language	English
source	Enthalten in SpringerPlus 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02
sourceStr	Enthalten in SpringerPlus 5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb. volume:5 year:2016 number:1 day:29 month:02
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Computer simulation Prostate Ablation Irreversible electroporation
dewey-raw	600
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	SpringerPlus
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan @@aut@@ Cornelis, Francois @@aut@@ Mashni, Joseph @@aut@@ Takaki, Haruyuki @@aut@@ Durack, Jeremy C. @@aut@@ Solomon, Stephen B. @@aut@@ Coleman, Jonathan A. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-02-29T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	718615298
dewey-sort	3600
id	SPR032777299
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR032777299</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220111205119.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR032777299</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">600</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Computer simulation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Prostate</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ablation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Irreversible electroporation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cornelis, Francois</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mashni, Joseph</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Takaki, Haruyuki</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Durack, Jeremy C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Solomon, Stephen B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Coleman, Jonathan A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">SpringerPlus</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Biomed Central, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718615298</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2661116-8</subfield><subfield code="x">2193-1801</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:29</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">5</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">29</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan
spellingShingle	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan ddc 600 misc Computer simulation misc Prostate misc Ablation misc Irreversible electroporation Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
authorStr	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)718615298
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	600 - Technology
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2193-1801
topic_title	600 ASE Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate Computer simulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Prostate (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ablation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Irreversible electroporation (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 600 misc Computer simulation misc Prostate misc Ablation misc Irreversible electroporation
topic_unstemmed	ddc 600 misc Computer simulation misc Prostate misc Ablation misc Irreversible electroporation
topic_browse	ddc 600 misc Computer simulation misc Prostate misc Ablation misc Irreversible electroporation
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	SpringerPlus
hierarchy_parent_id	718615298
dewey-tens	600 - Technology
hierarchy_top_title	SpringerPlus
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)718615298 (DE-600)2661116-8
title	Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR032777299 (SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e
title_full	Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
author_sort	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan
journal	SpringerPlus
journalStr	SpringerPlus
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan Cornelis, Francois Mashni, Joseph Takaki, Haruyuki Durack, Jeremy C. Solomon, Stephen B. Coleman, Jonathan A.
container_volume	5
class	600 ASE
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0
dewey-full	600
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of ablation defect on mr imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
title_auth	Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
abstract	Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.
abstractGer	Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0
remote_bool	true
author2	Cornelis, Francois Mashni, Joseph Takaki, Haruyuki Durack, Jeremy C. Solomon, Stephen B. Coleman, Jonathan A.
author2Str	Cornelis, Francois Mashni, Joseph Takaki, Haruyuki Durack, Jeremy C. Solomon, Stephen B. Coleman, Jonathan A.
ppnlink	718615298
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0
up_date	2024-07-03T14:44:00.599Z
_version_	1803569427229179904
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR032777299</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220111205119.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR032777299</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40064-016-1879-0-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">600</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Srimathveeravalli, Govindarajan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract To determine whether patient specific numerical simulations of irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate correlates with the treatment effect seen on follow-up MR imaging. Computer models were created using intra-operative US images, post-treatment follow-up MR images and clinical data from six patients receiving IRE. Isoelectric contours drawn using simulation results were compared with MR imaging to estimate the energy threshold separating treated and untreated tissue. Simulation estimates of injury to the neurovascular bundle and rectum were compared with clinical follow-up and patient reported outcomes. At the electric field strength of 700 V/cm, simulation estimated electric field distribution was not different from the ablation defect seen on follow-up MR imaging (p = 0.43). Simulation predicted cross sectional area of treatment (mean 532.33 ± 142.32 $ mm^{2} $) corresponded well with the treatment zone seen on MR imaging (mean 540.16 ± 237.13 $ mm^{2} $). Simulation results did not suggest injury to the rectum or neurovascular bundle, matching clinical follow-up at 3 months. Computer simulation estimated zone of irreversible electroporation in the prostate at 700 V/cm was comparable to measurements made on follow-up MR imaging. Numerical simulation may aid treatment planning for irreversible electroporation of the prostate in patients.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Computer simulation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Prostate</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ablation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Irreversible electroporation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cornelis, Francois</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mashni, Joseph</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Takaki, Haruyuki</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Durack, Jeremy C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Solomon, Stephen B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Coleman, Jonathan A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">SpringerPlus</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Biomed Central, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">5(2016), 1 vom: 29. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718615298</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2661116-8</subfield><subfield code="x">2193-1801</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:29</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1879-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">5</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">29</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4019136

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?