DGMed ECT Portal
TR EN

Literature Map

How the 2,821 publications in the oncology corpus are distributed across 22 application areas and five study-type bands. The map shows the publication volume in an area and the distribution of study types; it does not grade clinical effectiveness, evidence quality or treatment recommendation, and it does not indicate treatment suitability for any individual patient.

2,821publication records2,805 unique studies once versions are merged
863clinical publication records
131randomized, review, guideline
22application areas
1areas with high clinical publication volume
387registry records322 ClinicalTrials.gov + 65 other

“Clinical publication” covers primary clinical studies, case series and case reports, 31% of the oncology corpus. 322 registry records come from a ClinicalTrials.gov export and 65 from other registries; a record count is not a study count. What each figure counts is set out under How to Read the Numbers at the foot of the page.

Literature Volume Matrix

Rows are application areas, columns are study-type bands; bubble area is proportional to the publication count. 22 areas, sorted by clinical publication volume. The ratio beside a badge is the number of records entering the threshold over the total in the area; for areas that are not human oncology indications the second line names the kind of area rather than the tissue group.

15%High clinical publication volume
627%Limited clinical publication volume
1568%Exploratory / low-volume literature

Each area is counted at its electrochemotherapy literature volume; where there are no electrochemotherapy records the first scored method is used. The colours represent the publication volume category only; they indicate no degree of effectiveness, recommendation or success. The tier thresholds: thresholds behind the area badges.

22 areas shown

Application area RCT · review · guidelineClinical studyCase series · reportPreclinicalReview · technical · other Total
Pancreatic CancerDeep Organ TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 3/34 recordsIRE: High clinical publication volumethreshold 55/229 records 24111196060 274
Prostate & Urological TumoursUrogynaecological TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 2/11 recordsIRE: High clinical publication volumethreshold 37/117 records 2160133127 152
General Principles & BiophysicsBasic science, method and deviceECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 8/245 recordsIRE: Predominantly preclinical literaturethreshold 15/211 records 18485671226 968
Skin & Cutaneous TumoursSkin & Superficial TumoursECT: High clinical publication volumethreshold 27/173 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 1/5 records 1672512942 210
Liver TumoursDeep Organ TumoursECT: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 13/47 recordsIRE: High clinical publication volumethreshold 60/203 records 14912911443 291
Malignant MelanomaSkin & Superficial TumoursECT: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 18/124 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/6 records 851257534 193
Head & Neck TumoursHead, Neck & OrbitECT: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 12/63 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/6 records 727151117 77
Vascular MalformationsBenign clinical applicationECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 2/7 records 616907 38
Vulvar CancerUrogynaecological TumoursECT: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 10/29 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/1 records 318424 31
Colorectal CancerDeep Organ TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 4/24 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/8 records 377267 50
Breast CancerDeep Organ TumoursECT: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 10/87 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 1/8 records 235135317 120
Kaposi SarcomaSkin & Superficial TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 4/22 records 210714 24
CholangiocarcinomaDeep Organ TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/4 recordsIRE: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 7/17 records 27664 25
Devices & Clinical TrialsBasic science, method and deviceECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/4 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/5 records 2301321 39
Electrochemotherapy in Metastatic DiseaseSpecial IndicationsECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/13 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/7 records 15566 23
Oesophageal & Upper Gastrointestinal TumoursDeep Organ TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 1/2 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/1 records 14110 7
Veterinary OncologyVeterinary oncologyECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 2/122 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/4 records 102710723 158
Bone & Soft Tissue SarcomasMusculoskeletal & CNSECT: Limited clinical publication volumethreshold 7/39 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 3/13 records 011142712 64
Lung & Peribronchial TumoursDeep Organ TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 1/4 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 2/11 records 031122 18
Brain TumoursMusculoskeletal & CNSECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 1/7 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 2/30 records 002387 47
Endometrial CancerUrogynaecological TumoursIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/2 records 00110 2
Ovarian TumoursUrogynaecological TumoursECT: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 0/7 recordsIRE: Exploratory / low-volume literaturethreshold 1/2 records 00091 10

Bubble size, publication count: 125100671

Study-type band, count in the corpus: RCT · review · guideline 131Clinical study 579Case series · report 254Preclinical 1,293Review · technical · other 564

Randomized Trials, Systematic Reviews and Guidelines

These 131 records are selected by publication type: randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews or meta-analyses, guidelines and consensus documents. Publication type alone does not mean clinical outcome. 6 study protocols that report no results yet and 3 conference abstract are not in the list below (they remain searchable in the library); in 12 of the 122 listed articles electroporation is background rather than the intervention under study. Patient numbers, response, survival and risk-of-bias appraisal do not appear in this portal. Newest first; click a title for the citation and full abstract.

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2026

Altamura et al · International Journal of Clinical Practice

General Principles & Biophysics · ECT

Background Electrochemotherapy (ECT) is a nonthermal locoregional treatment that enhances cytotoxic drug uptake through reversible electroporation and is increasingly used across different…

Guideline / Consensus 2026

Stabuc et al · J Vis Exp

Vascular Malformations · Electrosclerotherapy

Bleomycin electrosclerotherapy (BEST) is an emerging, minimally invasive treatment for treating slow-flow vascular malformations. Following intralesional administration of bleomycin…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2026

Gehr et al · Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

Vascular Malformations · Electrosclerotherapy

Purpose: To review the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of bleomycin electrosclerotherapy (BEST) for slow-flow vascular malformations. Materials and methods: A systematic…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2026

Formstone et al · Eur Radiol

General Principles & Biophysics · ECT

Objectives: To systematically review the available evidence on electrochemotherapy (ECT) in pediatric patients, focusing on indications, treatment parameters, efficacy, and safety…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2026

Iqbal et al · Cureus

Liver Tumours · IRE

The aim of this study was to systematically pool all direct comparative evidence from two-arm studies comparing irreversible electroporation (IRE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2026

Mariussi · Einstein (Sao Paulo)

Pancreatic Cancer · IRE

Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of percutaneous irreversible electroporation combined with immunotherapy compared with irreversible…

Guideline / Consensus 2026

Persico et al · JDReAM

Liver Tumours · Undetermined

The new therapeutic options now available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have made their assessment more complex, especially due to the different stages of liver cirrhosis…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2026

Pallas · Liver Int

Cholangiocarcinoma · Other EP

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the second most common primary liver cancer and is being diagnosed with increasing frequency worldwide. We performed a systematic review on radiofrequency (RFA)…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2025

Rompianesi et al · Cancers (Basel)

Pancreatic Cancer · ECT

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most difficult cancers to treat, with a dismal 5-year survival rate of only 8-10%. This challenging prognosis highlights…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2025

Vickars et al · Cureus

Malignant Melanoma · ECT

Electrochemotherapy (ECT) is a locoregional cancer treatment primarily used in the palliative management of cutaneous metastases from malignant melanoma. However, its clinical…

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis 2025

Cribbs · PLoS One

Liver Tumours · IRE

Background: Locoregional treatments for early-stage unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are widely used, with irreversible electroporation (IRE) and transarterial chemoembolization…

Randomized Clinical Trial 2025

Tahvildari et al · Int J Cancer Manag

Breast Cancer · ECT

Background: Skin metastases occur in 5% - 30% of breast cancer patients, highlighting the need for effective treatments. Electrochemotherapy, which combines electric pulses with…

Clinical Indication Matrix

This shows publication volume and the distribution of study types; it does not grade clinical effectiveness, evidence quality or treatment recommendation.

IndicationECT publication recordsIRE publication recordsTotal electroporationPrimary human clinicalRCTSystematic review / meta-analysisGuideline / consensusPreclinicalPublication years
Liver Tumours4720329112121021141997–2026
Pancreatic Cancer342292741326153601997–2026
Skin & Cutaneous Tumours17352101213112291996–2026
Malignant Melanoma124619378242751995–2026
Prostate & Urological Tumours11117152798121311994–2026
Breast Cancer87812047110531991–2026
Head & Neck Tumours6367744250111998–2026
Bone & Soft Tissue Sarcomas39136424000271997–2026
Colorectal Cancer2485015111261997–2026
Brain Tumours730471000381993–2026
Vulvar Cancer291312203021997–2026
Cholangiocarcinoma417251302062012–2026
Kaposi Sarcoma220241601112006–2025
Electrochemotherapy in Metastatic Disease13723901061998–2026
Lung & Peribronchial Tumours411183000122002–2026
Ovarian Tumours7210000092009–2026
Oesophageal & Upper Gastrointestinal Tumours217610012018–2025
Endometrial Cancer022100012013–2017

Each row breaks the oncology electroporation corpus for one human oncology indication into its components. The ECT and IRE columns count the two regimes separately; total electroporation adds calcium electroporation, gene electrotransfer and the other regimes to those two. The remaining columns are computed over the total. Primary human clinical counts primary clinical research conducted in humans (randomized, prospective, retrospective, case series, case report); reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and preclinical studies are not in that figure. The guideline / consensus column counts only publications of that type; the direction or strength of a recommendation is not assessed, and the presence of a guideline does not mean the treatment is recommended. The figures come from publication type; patient numbers, response rates, effect sizes and risk of bias are not assessed. Basic research, veterinary and non-oncological areas are not indications and are therefore absent.

How to Read the Numbers

The portal is not a live literature search: it is a corpus of publications assembled at a given date and resolved to their citation data. The extended electroporation corpus was built by a broad search across many sources; it is not a systematic review, it was not conducted under a protocol such as PRISMA, and it makes no claim to cover the electroporation literature exhaustively. The data version at the foot of every page names the date it belongs to.

The figures used across the site
FigureWhat it countsWhat it leaves out
2,821
oncology electroporation corpus, publication records
The records included in the portal's oncology literature landscape: tumour treatment applications across 22 application areas. Every figure on an oncological indication page is computed from this scope.The non-oncological areas: DNA Vaccination by Electroporation, Cardiac Pulsed-Field Ablation, Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field (nsPEF) and Non-Oncological Electroporation.
3,057
extended electroporation corpus, publication records
In addition to the oncology electroporation corpus, this scope also includes non-oncological and contextual electroporation literature, 26 areas in total. Sections such as cardiac PFA, non-oncological IRE and DNA vaccination by electroporation compute their figures from this scope.Neighbouring technologies that are not electroporation, device clearances and assessment documents.
863
clinical publication records
Primary clinical studies, case series and case reports as assigned by the automatic study-type classification. 814 are human, 39 animal-model and 10 carry no determined model; 770 are journal articles, the rest conference abstracts, editorials, preprints and protocols. 235 of them enter the literature volume threshold calculation.Systematic reviews, guidelines and preclinical publications.
348
records feeding the badges
Records whose classification agrees with their own text and with the external index record. Across the whole extended corpus 395 records meet the condition; the badges of the non-oncological areas are computed from the difference.Records that conflict or carry insufficient data; they appear in the library but affect no badge.

The literature map, the application area pages and the anatomical explorer count the oncology corpus; the research library and the mechanism cross-matrix count the extended corpus. Neighbouring technologies and clearance and assessment documents enter no publication count; they stand with their own figures on Neighbouring Technologies and Clearance and Assessment Documents.

Where the labels come from
Scope: the extended electroporation corpus, 3,057 records
FieldPrimary sourceFallback ruleUnassigned
Study typePubMed publication type tagsCrossref and OpenAlex document type; then keyword rules over title and abstract41
Model systemMeSH headings (human, animal, cell line)Species and method expressions in title and abstract110
Mechanism termsTerm patterns over title, abstract and opening paragraphAt most six terms per record, ranked by frequency431

All labels are automatic: first the index's own field, and in its absence a rule set over title and abstract. Unassigned records are not hidden; they appear as “Not reported” in the tables. Document type and study design are held in separate fields (the preprint of a randomised study appears as both “Preprint” and “randomised”) and the counts are taken from the study type field. Document distribution: Journal Article 2,800 · Conference Abstract 99 · Editorial / Letter 78 · Protocol 33 · Preprint 21 · Correction / Erratum 14 · Thesis 10 · Technical Document 1 · Book Chapter 1.

Study-type bands. Scope: the oncology corpus, 2,821 records
BandStudy types it coversPublications
RCT · review · guidelineRandomized clinical trials, systematic reviews or meta-analyses, guidelines and consensus documents131
Clinical studyProspective, retrospective and unspecified clinical studies579
Case series · reportCase series and single case reports254
PreclinicalAnimal, in vitro, in silico and experimental biophysics studies1,293
Review · technical · otherNarrative reviews, technical and device papers, editorials, conference abstracts and records without an assigned study type564
The thresholds behind the area badges
Literature volumeThreshold
High clinical publication volumeAt least 15 clinical studies or case series and at least 1 higher-order design or synthesis publication (randomized trial, systematic review or guideline)
Limited clinical publication volumeAt least 4 clinical studies or case series
Predominantly preclinical literatureAt least 5 preclinical publications
Exploratory / low-volume literatureAreas meeting none of the thresholds above
The sets used in the thresholds
SetStudy types
Primary human clinical publicationPrimary clinical research conducted in humans: randomized, prospective and retrospective clinical studies, case series and case reports. Reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and preclinical studies are not in this category.
Clinical study or case seriesCase Series, Clinical Study, Prospective Clinical Study, Randomized Clinical Trial, Retrospective Clinical Study
RCT / systematic review / meta-analysis / guideline-consensus recordGuideline / Consensus, Randomized Clinical Trial, Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis
Preclinical publicationAnimal Study, Experimental Biophysics Study, In Silico / Modelling, In Vitro Study

A badge is computed for each (method, area) pair separately: within the same indication the electrochemotherapy and irreversible electroporation literatures can be at different stages. Case reports do not count towards the thresholds, so that a single case report cannot lift an area to a higher tier. The figure of 863 “clinical publications” above does include case reports.

How the corpus was assembled

The corpus is a set of publications assembled through a broad literature search and filed by application area: each document corresponds to one record, its citation data resolved from external indexes and its labels assigned by rule. The source set holds 3,215 documents, of which 3,057 are counted as publications. The rest are not publications: they are neighbouring-technology records, clearance and assessment documents and manufacturer documents, and they stand with their own counts on their own pages. The search is broad but is not a systematic review and makes no claim to cover the literature exhaustively.

This is not a systematic review and was not conducted as one: there is no pre-registered protocol, no fixed search string, no locked date range and no two-reviewer screening flow. The portal therefore cannot publish a PRISMA flow diagram; doing so would describe a process that did not take place. What the search covers and what it deliberately leaves out is set out in the table below.

Deliberately left outside the publication count
Set left out of scopeWhy it is not counted as a publicationDocuments
Regulatory and grey literatureApproval documents, adverse event records, health technology assessment reports and manufacturer instructions for use. They are not peer-reviewed journal publications and therefore do not enter the publication counts; their content is the subject of the safety and regulation page. The trial registry exports also sit in this folder and feed the trials table, but they are not counted as publications.59
Electrochemical ablation (EChT)A separate technology that drives an electrochemical reaction in tissue with direct current; applied on its own it involves no pulse that raises membrane permeability. The set also holds studies that combine electrolysis with electroporation pulses (E²); sitting on both sides of the boundary, they stay out of the corpus and are published on the neighbouring technologies page.37
Food, microbial and environmental PEFPulsed electric field in food processing, microbial control and environmental applications. This is electroporation but not a medical use, so it does not enter the portal's corpus. The publications are listed on the Neighbouring Technologies page.6
Thermal and other ablation methodsRadiofrequency, microwave, cryoablation and focused ultrasound. Tissue death is by heat or freezing rather than membrane permeabilisation, so they do not enter the electroporation literature. The publications are listed on the Neighbouring Technologies page.21
Intralesional chemotherapy without electroporationStudies in which the drug is injected directly into the lesion with no electric pulse. This is the comparison ground for electrochemotherapy but is not itself electroporation. The publications are listed on the Neighbouring Technologies page.10
Bioelectromagnetic fieldsStudies of low-voltage electric and magnetic fields. No pulse exceeding the membrane permeability threshold is applied, so this is not electroporation. The publications are listed on the Neighbouring Technologies page.11
BooksBooks and book scans. They cannot be counted as individual publication records and stay outside the corpus; book chapters filed with their own citation data do enter the corpus.2

Citation data is resolved from external indexes: 2,466 records through PubMed, 481 through Crossref and 91 through Europe PMC. 3,000 records carry a DOI and 2,536 a PubMed identifier. For a further 11 records the citation is taken from the document itself, because no index held them. Every document brought in by the search corresponds to a record in the portal; no document is left without one.

Known limitations of the corpus

Classification is automatic

Literature records are classified using automated bibliographic, rule-based and machine-assisted methods. Records are not individually subjected to human scientific review. Automated consistency checks, exception handling and record-level correction mechanisms are used to improve classification quality. Errors on individual records are to be expected, and aggregate counts carry the same margin.

Which consistency checks run

For each record: whether the citation resolves in an external index; whether the study design agrees with the index publication type, with patterns in the record’s own text and with MeSH terms; whether the clinical methods (ECT, IRE, cardiac PFA, gene electrotransfer, calcium electroporation) have been confused with one another; whether the application area agrees with the terminology of the title and abstract; whether the model system conflicts with the study type or the title (phantom, in silico, simulation, ex vivo). For the randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines that lift an area to the top tier, the design claim must be positively confirmed by at least one source.

Area assignment places a record in one area

Each record is assigned to a single application area; a publication covering more than one indication is counted in only one of them. The assignment is made by rule during the search and compared against the external index record; unverified assignments do not enter the volume count.

A publication count is not a study count

The same study can enter the corpus as more than one record: a preprint and its final article, a conference version and the full publication, a translation, an article and its erratum. In the oncology corpus 55 records form 27 families, and in 15 of them the records are versions of the same study. The publication record count is 2,821; once those versions are deduplicated 2,805 independent studies remain. Every figure on these pages is a publication record count, while only one version of a family enters the threshold calculation.

The corpus is a snapshot

It covers only the publications the search brought in and stays as it is until the corpus is refreshed. The data version at the foot of every page names the date it belongs to.

Text extraction is not always clean

Where no abstract could be found in the indexes the text is extracted from the source PDF and can break. For 88 such records the text is not published; the citation data and source links remain. In 3 record the title stays cut short.

Registry data can be incomplete

The registry export carries no regime distinction: the field is empty on all 322 records. Enrolment and status fields can also be stale unless they are updated in the registry.

There is no outcome data

The portal counts publications; it reports no outcomes. Patient numbers, response rates, local control, survival, safety measures, comparator arms and risk-of-bias appraisal appear on no page. How many publications an area holds says nothing about how well the treatment works.

Language and access bias

Non-English literature, unindexed journals and studies whose full text was unavailable are systematically under-represented. This is not a systematic review protocol.

This is not a GRADE assessment. The tier names describe literature volume only: how many publications an area holds and which study types they fall into. They are not measures of response rate, survival, efficacy or safety; study quality and risk of bias have not been appraised. A badge does not indicate that a treatment is in clinical use, reimbursed, or approved by regulators. The thresholds are this portal's own definition and cannot be compared with the evidence gradings used elsewhere.

If you spot an error in a record, report it from that record's drawer in the library; the citation and identifier are added to the message automatically. For page-level errors write to info@dgmed.com.tr.

Publication span: 1986–2026 (extended electroporation corpus), 1988–2026 (oncology corpus). The datasets behind the tables on these pages can be downloaded: records, literature volume matrix, mechanism distribution, application areas, trial registry, other registries, validation ledger.

Extraction and Verification from the Full Text

How the data inside the publications is extracted and checked

For 3,040 of the 3,057 records in the extended corpus the publication's full text has been turned into structured data: study design, patient and lesion counts, indication, device, electrodes, drug, electrical parameters, outcomes and adverse events. Every field that carries evidence is published together with the publication's own sentence; a field whose quote cannot be found in the source is not published. The portal does not assess these fields, it relays them; the publication itself is the binding source.

Extraction and verification steps
  1. The fields are read from the publication's own text Only what the publication states is written. Leaving a field empty is preferred to filling it by inference. The Methods and Results sections are given priority and the reference list is not read. Where the whole text is not covered, the record itself says so, and an empty field there does not necessarily mean the publication failed to report it.
  2. Every field is published with its verbatim quote A field that carries evidence stands together with the publication's own sentence, and that sentence has been searched for in the source text word for word. A claim whose quote cannot be found is dropped before publication and the drop is recorded on that record. Whether the quote actually supports the claim is additionally checked at word level.
  3. The values are checked for consistency A generic noun is not a device, evidence of use cannot come from outside the Methods section, a non-human study cannot use RECIST, complete response cannot exceed objective response, units cannot fall outside physical ranges. This check does not measure evidence quality.
  4. Flagged claims are read a second time A claim flagged by the checks is put to an independent second reading together with the relevant part of the source text, and a verbatim quote is required again; the returned quote is searched for in the source as well. For fields left empty, the unread part of the publication is scanned separately. An unsupported claim is dropped.

There is no human curation in this chain: no record is treated as correct because a person read it, and no field waits for human approval.