System and method for estimating tissue heating of a target ablation zone for electrical-energy based therapies

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is related to medical therapies involving the administering of electrical treatment energy. More particularly, embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods for modeling and providing a graphical representation of tissue heating and electric field for a medical treatment device that applies electrical treatment energy through a plurality of electrodes defining a target treatment area. Embodiments of the present invention also provide systems and methods providing a graphical representation of a target ablation zone based on one or more electrical conductivity parameters that are specific for the tissue to be treated.

DESCRIPTION OF RELATED ART

Electroporation-based therapies (EBTs) are clinical procedures that utilize pulsed electric fields to induce nanoscale defects in cell membranes. Typically, pulses are applied through minimally invasive needle electrodes inserted directly into the target tissue, and the pulse parameters are tuned to create either reversible or irreversible defects. Reversible electroporation facilitates the transport of molecules into cells without directly compromising cell viability. This has shown great promise for treating cancer when used in combination with chemotherapeutic agents or plasmid DNA (M. Marty et al., “Electrochemotherapy—An easy, highly effective and safe treatment of cutaneous and subcutaneous metastases: Results of ESOPE (European Standard Operating Procedures of Electrochemotherapy) study,” European Journal of Cancer Supplements, 4, 3-13, 2006; A. I. Daud et al., “Phase I Trial of Interleukin-12 Plasmid Electroporation in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 5896-5903, Dec. 20, 2008). Alternatively, irreversible electroporation (IRE) has been recognized as a non-thermal tissue ablation modality that produces a tissue lesion, which is visible in real-time on multiple imaging platforms (R. V. Davalos, L. M. Mir, and B. Rubinsky, “Tissue ablation with irreversible electroporation,” Ann Biomed Eng, 33, 223-31, February 2005; R. V. Davalos, D. M. Otten, L. M. Mir, and B. Rubinsky, “Electrical impedance tomography for imaging tissue electroporation,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 51, 761-767, 2004; L. Appelbaum, E. Ben-David, J. Sosna, Y. Nissenbaum, and S. N. Goldberg, “US Findings after Irreversible Electroporation Ablation: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation,” Radiology, 262, 117-125, Jan. 1, 2012). Because the mechanism of cell death does not rely on thermal processes, IRE spares major nerve and blood vessel architecture and is not subject to local heat sink effects when using a specific protocol that does not exceed the thermal damage threshold. (B. Al-Sakere, F. Andre, C. Bernat, E. Connault, P. Opolon, R. V. Davalos, B. Rubinsky, and L. M. Mir, “Tumor ablation with irreversible electroporation,” PLoS ONE, 2, e1135, 2007). These unique benefits have translated to the successful treatment of several surgically “inoperable” tumors (K. R. Thomson et al., “Investigation of the safety of irreversible electroporation in humans,” J Vasc Intery Radiol, 22, 611-21, May 2011; R. E. Neal II et al., “A Case Report on the Successful Treatment of a Large Soft-Tissue Sarcoma with Irreversible Electroporation,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, 1-6, 2011; P. A. Garcia et al., “Non-thermal irreversible electroporation (N-TIRE) and adjuvant fractionated radiotherapeutic multimodal therapy for intracranial malignant glioma in a canine patient,” Technol Cancer Res Treat, 10, 73-83, 2011).

In EBTs, the electric field distribution is the primary factor for dictating defect formation and the resulting volume of treated tissue (J. F. Edd and R. V. Davalos, “Mathematical modeling of irreversible electroporation for treatment planning,” Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, 6, 275-286, 2007 (“Edd and Davalos, 2007”); D. Miklavcic, D. Semrov, H. Mekid, and L. M. Mir, “A validated model of in vivo electric field distribution in tissues for electrochemotherapy and for DNA electrotransfer for gene therapy,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1523, 73-83, 2000). The electric field is influenced by both the geometry and positioning of the electrodes as well as the dielectric tissue properties. Because the pulse duration is typically much longer than the pulse rise/fall time, static solutions of the Laplace's equation incorporating only electric conductivity are sufficient for predicting the electric field distribution. In tissues with uniform conductivity, solutions can be obtained analytically for various needle electrode configurations if the exposure length is much larger than the separation distance (S. Corovic, M. Pavlin, and D. Miklavcic, “Analytical and numerical quantification and comparison of the local electric field in the tissue for different electrode configurations,” Biomed Eng Online, 6, 2007; R. Neal II et al., “Experimental Characterization and Numerical Modeling of Tissue Electrical Conductivity during Pulsed Electric Fields for Irreversible Electroporation Treatment Planning,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, PP, 1-1, 2012 (“Neal et al., 2012”)). This is not often the case in clinical applications where aberrant masses with a diameter on the order of 1 cm are treated with an electrode exposure length of similar dimensions. Additionally, altered membrane permeability due to electroporation influences the tissue conductivity in a non-linear manner. Therefore numerical techniques may be used to account for any electrode configuration and incorporate a tissue-specific function relating the electrical conductivity to the electric field distribution (i.e. extent of electroporation).

Conventional devices for delivering therapeutic energy such as electrical pulses to tissue include a handle and one or more electrodes coupled to the handle. Each electrode is connected to an electrical power source. The power source allows the electrodes to deliver the therapeutic energy to a targeted tissue, thereby causing ablation of the tissue.

Once a target treatment area is located within a patient, the electrodes of the device are placed in such a way as to create a treatment zone that surrounds the treatment target area. In some cases, each electrode is placed by hand into a patient to create a treatment zone that surrounds a lesion. The medical professional who is placing the electrodes typically watches an imaging monitor while placing the electrodes to approximate the most efficient and accurate placement.

However, if the electrodes are placed by hand in this fashion, it is very difficult to predict whether the locations selected will ablate the entire treatment target area because the treatment region defined by the electrodes vary greatly depending on such parameters as the electric field density, the voltage level of the pulses being applied, size of the electrode and the type of tissue being treated. Further, it is often difficult or sometimes not possible to place the electrodes in the correct location of the tissue to be ablated because the placement involves human error and avoidance of obstructions such as nerves, blood vessels and the like.

Conventionally, to assist the medical professional in visualizing a treatment region defined by the electrodes, an estimated treatment region is generated using a numerical model analysis such as complex finite element analysis. One problem with such a method is that even a modest two dimensional treatment region may take at least 30 minutes to several hours to complete even in a relatively fast personal computer. This means that it would be virtually impossible to try to obtain on a real time basis different treatment regions based on different electrode positions.

In IRE treatments, the electric field distribution is the primary factor for dictating defect formation and the resulting volume of treated tissue (See J. F. Edd and R. V. Davalos, “Mathematical modeling of irreversible electroporation for treatment planning,” Technol Cancer Res Treat, vol. 6, pp. 275-286, 2007; D. Sel, et al., “Sequential finite element model of tissue electropermeabilization,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 52, pp. 816-27, May 2005). The electric field is influenced by both the geometry and positioning of the electrodes as well as the dielectric tissue properties. The application of an electric field across any conductive media will result in some degree of resistive losses in which energy is dissipated as heat. Though cell death in IRE is attributed to non-thermal mechanisms, it is possible to inadvertently elevate tissue temperatures above thermal damage thresholds if parameters are not chosen carefully. Since a major advantage of IRE is the ablation of tissue without deleterious thermal effects and the therapy is often applied in regions which cannot clinically sustain thermal injury, it is important to identify safe operating parameters. Transient heating of tissue in proximity to the electrode can result in the denaturing of the extracellular matrix, scar formation, or damage to local blood vessels and nerves. To avoid these effects, it is important to understand the extent and geometry of tissue heating.

Therefore, it would be desirable to provide an improved system and method to predict a treatment region that avoids electrical and thermal overexposure and damage in order to determine safe and effective pulse protocols for administering electrical energy based therapies, such IRE.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one embodiment, the invention provides a system for treating a tissue, which system applies electrical treatment energy through one or more electrodes, such as a plurality of electrodes, defining a target treatment area of the tissue. The system comprises a memory, a display device, a processor coupled to the memory and the display device, and a treatment planning module stored in the memory and executable by the processor. In one embodiment, the treatment planning module is adapted to generate an estimated heat distribution and/or electrical field distribution in the display device based on one or more parameters for an electrical energy based protocol, such as an irreversible electroporation (IRE) protocol. In another embodiment, the treatment planning module is adapted to generate an estimated target ablation zone based on a combination of one or more parameters for an electrical energy based protocol, such as an IRE-based protocol, and one or more tissue-specific conductivity parameters.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a method of treating a tissue with a medical treatment device that applies electrical treatment energy through a one or more or a plurality of electrodes defining a target treatment area of the tissue and comprises a display device. The method may be executed partially or completely using the system of the invention. In a specific embodiment, one or more steps are executed through the treatment planning module.

In embodiments, the treatment planning module can be used to determine a temperature distribution to determine tissue heating at or around a target ablation zone prior to or during treatment. The treatment planning module can be used to graphically display contour lines which represent a specific temperature of tissue heating. In one embodiment, the treatment planning module estimates the temperature rise within tissue due to Joule heating effects, and plots a contour line according to a temperature specified by a user. Further, the treatment planning module may further plot a contour line representing an electric field intensity such that temperature and electric field intensity can be correlated. The treatment planning module may plot the temperature distribution and electric field distribution for a bipolar and single needle electrodes. This capability may allow a user (e.g. treating physician) to determine heating to surrounding tissues during treatment planning and adjust parameters to prevent thermal damage to critical surrounding structures such as nerves and blood vessels. In one embodiment, the contour lines are Cassini oval approximations performed according to the equations and procedure in Example 7.

In embodiments, the treatment planning module can be used to provide the electric field distributions using different configurations of bipolar probes and include the dynamic change in electrical conductivity from the non-electroporated baseline tissue electrical conductivity. The treatment planning module may plot contour lines representing electric field distributions based on a specific combination of electrode length, separation distance, and applied voltage. The treatment planning module may incorporate the dynamic change in electrical conductivity from the baseline during treatment to account for treatment-related changes in conductivity for particular tissues such as liver, kidney, brain, etc. This capability may allow the treating physician to determine electric field distributions and zones of ablation based on the capacity for a specific target tissue to change in conductivity during treatment. In one embodiment, the contour lines are Cassini oval approximations performed according to the equations and procedure in Example 7.

In embodiments, the treatment planning module can be based on a parametric study of the dynamic conductivity curve so that variables related to the dynamic conductivity could be used to fit tissue specific behavior. In embodiments, the treatment planning module may provide input for one or more electrical conductivity parameters such as the baseline (e.g., non-electroporated) conductivity, change in conductivity, the transition zone (how rapidly the conductivity increases), the electric field at which the change in conductivity occurs, and the electric field at which irreversible electroporation occurs. These parameters may be experimentally derived for different tissues and stored in a database. This capability may allow the treating physician to account for different conductivity parameters as they apply to different target tissues when designing a treatment protocol. Thus, when considering a specific tissue, the treating physician may optimize the calculation of an ablation zone for that tissue by inputting one or more of the tissue-specific conductivity parameters for the tissue of interest.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS The accompanying drawings illustrate certain aspects of embodiments of the present invention, and should not be used to limit or define the invention. Together with the written description the drawings serve to explain certain principles of the invention.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a representative system of the invention.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a representative treatment control computer of the invention.

FIG. 3 is schematic diagram illustrating details of the generator shown in the system of FIG. 1, including elements for detecting an over-current condition.

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram showing IRE zones of ablation nomenclature (see E. Ben-David, et al., “Characterization of Irreversible Electroporation Ablation in In Vivo Porcine Liver,” Am J Roentgenol, vol. 198, pp. W62-W68, January 2012).

FIG. 5 is a graph of the asymmetrical Gompertz function showing tissue electric conductivity as a function of electric field.

FIG. 6 is a graph showing a representative 3D plot of current [A] as a function of Z (σ_max/σ₀) and voltage-to-distance ratio (W) for a separation distance of 1.5 cm and an electrode exposure length of 2.0 cm as used by Ben-David et al.

FIGS. 7A and 7B are graphs showing representative contour plots of current [A] as a function of electrode exposure and separation distance using 1500 V/cm for Z=1 (FIG. 7A) and Z=4 (FIG. 7B).

FIGS. 8A and 8B are tables showing Whole Model Parameter Estimates and Effect Tests, respectively.

FIG. 8C is a graph showing a plot of Actual Current vs. Predicted Current.

FIGS. 9A-9E are graphs showing the representative (15 mm gap) correlation between current vs. exposure length and electrode radius for maximum electrical conductivities (1×-6×, respectively).

FIG. 10A is a table showing experimental validation of the code for determining the tissue/potato dynamic from in vitro measurements, referred to as potato experiment #1.

FIG. 10B is a table showing experimental validation of the code for determining the tissue/potato dynamic from in vitro measurements, referred to as potato experiment #2.

FIGS. 11A and 11B are graphs plotting residual current versus data point for analytical shape factor (FIG. 11A) and statistical (numerical) non-linear conductivity (FIG. 11B).

FIGS. 12A-12C are graphs showing representative contour plots of the electric field strength at 1.0 cm from the origin using an edge-to-edge voltage-to-distance ratio of 1500 V/cm assuming z=1, wherein FIG. 12A is a plot of the x-direction, FIG. 12B is a plot of the y-direction, and FIG. 12C is a plot of the z-direction.

FIGS. 13A-13C are 3D plots representing zones of ablation for a 1500 V/cm ratio, electrode exposure of 2 cm, and electrode separation of 1.5 cm, at respectively a 1000 V/cm IRE threshold (FIG. 13A), 750 V/cm IRE threshold (FIG. 13B), and 500 V/cm IRE threshold (FIG. 13C) using the equation for an ellipsoid.

FIG. 14A is a schematic diagram showing an experimental setup of an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 14B is a schematic diagram showing dimension labeling conventions.

FIG. 14C is a waveform showing 50 V pre-pulse electrical current at 1 cm separation, grid=0.25 A, where the lack of rise in intrapulse conductivity suggests no significant membrane electroporation during pre-pulse delivery.

FIG. 14D is a waveform showing electrical current for pulses 40-50 of 1750 V at 1 cm separation, grid=5 A, where progressive intrapulse current rise suggests continued conductivity increase and electroporation.

FIGS. 15A and 15B are electric field [V/cm] isocontours for non-electroporated tissue (FIG. 15A) and electroporated tissue (FIG. 15B) maps assuming a maximum conductivity to baseline conductivity ratio of 7.0×.

FIGS. 16A and 16B are representative Cassini Oval shapes when varying the ‘a=0.5 (red), 0.6 (orange), 0.7 (green), 0.8 (blue), 0.9 (purple), 1.0 (black)’ or ‘b=1.0 (red), 1.05 (orange), 1.1 (green), 1.15 (blue), 1.2 (purple), 1.25 (black)’ parameters individually. Note: If a>1.0 or b<1.0 the lemniscate of Bernoulli (the point where the two ellipses first connect (a=b=1) forming “∞”) disconnects forming non-contiguous shapes.

FIG. 17 is a graph showing NonlinearModelFit results for the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters used to generate the Cassini curves that represent the experimental IRE zones of ablation in porcine liver.

FIG. 18 shows Cassini curves from a ninety 100-μs pulse IRE treatment that represent the average zone of ablation (blue dashed), +SD (red solid), and −SD (black solid) according to a=0.821±0.062 and b=1.256±0.079 using two single needle electrodes.

FIG. 19 is a representation of the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model for a 3D Electric Field [V/cm] Distribution in Non-Electroporated (Baseline) Tissue with 1.5-cm Single Needle Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and with 3000 V applied.

FIGS. 20A-D are representations of the Electric Field [V/cm] Distributions from the 3D Non-Electroporated (Baseline) Models of FIG. 19, wherein FIG. 20A represents the x-y plane mid-electrode length, FIG. 20B represents the x-z plane mid-electrode diameter, FIG. 20C represents the y-z plane mid-electrode diameter, and FIG. 20D represents the y-z plane between electrodes.

FIG. 21 is a representation of the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model for a 3D Electric Field [V/cm] Distribution in Electroporated Tissue with 1.5-cm Single Needle Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and 3000 V applied assuming σ_max/σ₀=3.6.

FIGS. 22A-22D are representations of the Electric Field [V/cm] Distributions from the 3D Electroporated Models with 1.5-cm Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and 3000 V (cross-sections) assuming σ_max/σ₀=3.6, wherein FIG. 22A represents the x-y plane mid-electrode length, FIG. 22B represents the x-z plane mid-electrode diameter, FIG. 22C represents the y-z plane mid-electrode diameter, and FIG. 22D represents the y-z plane between electrodes.

FIG. 23 is a representative Cassini curve showing zones of ablation derived using two single needle electrodes and the pre-pulse procedure to determine the ratio of maximum conductivity to baseline conductivity. For comparison purposes the baseline electric field isocontour is also presented in which no electroporation is taken into account.

FIGS. 24A-24D are representative surface plots showing finite element temperature calculations at different electrode spacings. The surface plots show temperature distributions at t=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) for 3000 V treatments with (A) 1.0 cm, (B) 1.5 cm, (C) 2.0 cm, and (D) 2.5 cm electrode spacing. Contour lines show approximate electric field correlating to T=45° C. (A) 900 V/cm, (B) 1075 V/cm, (C) 1100 V/cm, and (D) 1080 V/cm.

FIGS. 25A-25D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different electrode spacings. The surface plots show the temperature distribution at t=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) for 3000 V treatments with (A) 1.0 cm, (B) 1.5 cm, (C) 2.0 cm, and (D) 2.5 cm electrode spacing. Red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to T=45° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIGS. 26A-26D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different times. The surface plots show the temperature distribution at (A) t=10 seconds, (B) t=40 seconds, (C) t=90 seconds, and (D) t=200 seconds. Treatment parameters were held constant at 3000 V, 1.5 cm exposure, and 2.5 cm electrode spacing. Red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to T=45° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm. The pulses were programmed with 100 μs duration.

FIGS. 27A-27D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different temperatures. The surface plots show the temperature distribution at A) T=37.2° C., B) T=40° C., C) T=45° C., and D) T=50° C. Treatment parameters were held constant at 3000V, 1.5 cm exposure, and 2.5 cm electrode spacing at a time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each). Red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to the specified temperatures and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIG. 28 is a screenshot of the Cassini Oval Approximation Tool using the following parameters: Voltage=3000 V, Gap=10 mm, Time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), Temperature=50° C., and Electric Field=500 V/cm. The red dashed line shows the Cassini oval correlating to 50° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIG. 29 is a screenshot of the Cassini Oval Approximation Tool using the following parameters: Voltage=3000 V, Gap=10 mm, Time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), Temperature=40° C., and Electric Field=500 V/cm. The red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 40° C. and the black dotted line show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIGS. 30A-30D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different temperature thresholds. The surface plots show the temperature and electric field distribution at A) T=40° C., B) T=45° C., C) T=50° C., and D) T=55° C. The other parameters are the same as those for FIGS. 28 and 29. The red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to the specified temperatures and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIGS. 31A-31D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different voltages. The surface plots show the temperature and electric field distribution at A) 3000 V, B) 2000 V C) 1500 V and D) 1000 V. Other parameters were Gap=10 mm, Time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), Temperature=40° C., and Electric Field=500 V/cm. The red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 40° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIGS. 32A-32D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different electric field thresholds. The surface plots show the temperature and electric field distribution at A) 500 V/cm, B) 1000 V/cm, C) 1500 V/cm, and D) 2000 V/cm. Other parameters were Voltage=3000 V, Gap=10 mm, Time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), Temperature=40° C. The red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 40° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to the specified electric field thresholds.

FIGS. 33A-33D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different electrode spacings. The surface plots show the temperature and electric field distribution at an electrode spacing of 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, and 20 mm. Other parameters were Voltage=3000 V, Time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), Temperature=40° C., and Electric Field=500 V/cm. The red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 40° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIGS. 34A-34D are representative surface plots showing Cassini Oval Approximations at different times. The surface plots show the temperature and electric field distribution at A) 90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), B) 60 seconds (Sixty pulses of 100 μs each), C) 30 seconds (Thirty pulses of 100 μs each), and D) 10 seconds (Ten pulses of 100 μs each). Other parameters were Voltage=3000 V, Gap=10 mm, Temperature=40° C., and Electric Field=500 V/cm. The red dashed lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 40° C. and the black dotted lines show the Cassini oval correlating to 500 V/cm.

FIG. 35 is a representation of the COMSOL three-dimensional finite element domain and mesh used to calculate Cassini Oval values for the electric and thermal curves.

FIG. 36D is a table showing parameters of runs 7, 8, and 9 including electrode length, separation distance (insulation), and applied voltage.

FIG. 36E is a table showing lesion dimensions for runs 7, 8, and 9. The results show that as the length of the bipolar electrode increases the size of the zone of ablation increases.

FIG. 37 is a graph showing electrical conductivity (S/m, y-axis) plotted against electric field strength (V/cm, x-axis). FIG. 37 shows the conductivity changes from 0.1 to 0.35 at an electric field centered at 500 V/cm.

FIG. 38A is a representative contour plot showing the “Goldberg” data (red dashed line) vs a calculated threshold (solid black line) based on the parameters shown in FIG. 38C. The x and y axes represent distance [cm].

FIG. 38B is a representative contour plot showing the conductivity (blue dotted line) vs. a calculated threshold (solid black line) based on the parameters shown in FIG. 38C. The x and y axes represent distance [cm].

FIG. 38C is a table showing the parameters used to generate the contour plots of FIGS. 38A and 38B.

FIGS. 39A-39C are representative contour plots showing the “Goldberg” data (red dashed line) and calculated threshold (solid black line) and FIGS. 39D-39F are contour plots showing the conductivity (blue dotted line) and calculated threshold (solid black line) for conductivities of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The other parameters are the same as those in the table of FIG. 38C. The x and y axes represent distance [cm].

FIGS. 40A-40C are representative contour plots showing the “Goldberg” data (red dashed line) and calculated threshold (solid black line) and FIGS. 40D-40F are contour plots showing the conductivity (blue dotted line) and calculated threshold (solid black line) for conductivity multipliers of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Other parameters used to generate the plots of FIGS. 40A-40F include an IRE Threshold of 600 V/cm, a transition zone of 0.4, a Voltage of 700 V, an E-Field of 700 V/cm, and a Sigma (baseline electrical conductivity) of 0.20 S/m. The x and y axes represent distance [cm].

FIGS. 41A-41C are representative contour plots showing the “Goldberg” data (red dashed line) and calculated threshold (solid black line) and FIGS. 41D-41F are contour plots showing the conductivity (blue dotted line) and calculated threshold (solid black line) for conductivity multipliers of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Other parameters used to generate the plots of FIGS. 41A-41F include an IRE Threshold of 1000 V/cm, transition zone of 0.2, Voltage of 2700 V, E-Field of 700 V/cm, and Sigma (baseline electrical conductivity) of 0.20 S/m. The x and y axes represent distance [cm].

FIG. 42 is a representative contour plot of the electric field distribution assuming a static electrical conductivity using a bipolar probe. The model assumes an applied voltage of 2700 V with 7 mm long electrodes separated by an 8 mm insulation shaft.

FIGS. 43A-43D are representative contour plots of post-IRE cell viability predictions with the colored curves illustrating different cell viability levels. The model assumes using ninety 100-μs pulses at a rate of one pulse per second with 2700 V, and a viability value of 0.1% (S=0.001) as the complete cell death due to IRE exposure.

FIG. 44 is a graph showing the dynamic electric conductivity function of liver tissue undergoing electroporation. The sigmoid function includes a baseline of 0.067 S/m and maximum conductivity of 0.241 S/m.

FIG. 45 is a representative contour plot showing the electric field distribution assuming a dynamic electrical conductivity using the bipolar probe with 3000 V with 7 mm long electrodes separated by an 8 mm insulation shaft.

FIGS. 46A-D are representative contour plots showing post-IRE cell viability, wherein A) corresponds to 20 pulses at 2000 volts, B) corresponds to 20 pulses at 3000 volts, C) corresponds to 100 pulses at 2000 volts, and D) corresponds to 100 pulses at 3000 volts.

FIGS. 47A and 47B are representative contour plots showing post-IRE cell viability after three hundred (FIG. 47A) and three hundred and sixty (FIG. 47B) 100-μs pulses at a rate of one pulse per second with an applied voltage of 3000 V.

FIGS. 48A and 48B are a table showing the results of a parametric study on bipolar electrode configuration as a function of electrode length, separation distance, and diameter in the resulting IRE area and volume.

FIG. 49 is a table showing the results of a parametric study on bipolar electrode configuration as a function of applied voltage and pulse number in the resulting IRE area and volume with 7 mm long electrodes separated by an 8 mm insulation shaft.

FIG. 50 is a table showing the results of a parametric study on bipolar electrode configuration as a function of pulse number in the resulting IRE area and volume with an applied voltage of 3000 V with 7 mm long electrodes separated by an 8 mm insulation shaft.

FIGS. 51A-C are schematics of representative electrode geometries.

FIGS. 51D-F are representative contour plots showing the resulting electric field distribution corresponding to the electrode geometries of FIGS. 51A-C.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

Reference will now be made in detail to various exemplary embodiments of the invention. Embodiments described in the description and shown in the figures are illustrative only and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Changes may be made in the specific embodiments described in this specification and accompanying drawings that a person of ordinary skill in the art will recognize are within the scope and spirit of the invention.

Throughout the present teachings, any and all of the features and/or components disclosed or suggested herein, explicitly or implicitly, may be practiced and/or implemented in any combination, whenever and wherever appropriate as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The various features and/or components disclosed herein are all illustrative for the underlying concepts, and thus are non-limiting to their actual descriptions. Any means for achieving substantially the same functions are considered as foreseeable alternatives and equivalents, and are thus fully described in writing and fully enabled. The various examples, illustrations, and embodiments described herein are by no means, in any degree or extent, limiting the broadest scopes of the claimed inventions presented herein or in any future applications claiming priority to the instant application.

Embodiments of the invention include a method for visualization of heat and electric field distribution within a target treatment area, the method comprising: selecting as inputs an applied voltage, electrode spacing, and treatment duration corresponding to a desired treatment protocol for a target treatment area; using the inputs in a Cassini approximation of data, wherein the data comprises measured voltage, electrode spacing, and time of actual treatment protocols, and determining an expected temperature distribution and expected electric field distribution of the target treatment area; and displaying a graphical representation of a selected temperature and a selected electric field of the expected temperature and electric field distributions. Such methods can further comprise as inputs one or more of a baseline conductivity for the target treatment area, a change in conductivity for the target treatment area, or a conductivity for a specific tissue type.

Such methods can include a method of treatment planning for medical therapies involving administering electrical treatment energy, the method comprising: providing one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to tissue through one or more or a plurality of electrodes; modeling heat distribution in the tissue based on the parameters; and displaying a graphical representation of the modeled heat distribution.

One embodiment of the present invention is illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2. Representative components that can be used with the present invention can include one or more of those that are illustrated in FIG. 1. For example, in embodiments, one or more probes 22 can be used to deliver therapeutic energy and are powered by a voltage pulse generator 10 that generates high voltage pulses as therapeutic energy such as pulses capable of irreversibly electroporating the tissue cells. In the embodiment shown, the voltage pulse generator 10 includes six separate receptacles for receiving up to six individual probes 22 which are adapted to be plugged into the respective receptacle. The receptacles are each labeled with a number in consecutive order. In other embodiments, the voltage pulse generator can have any number of receptacles for receiving more or less than six probes.

For example, a treatment protocol according to the invention could include a one or more or a plurality of electrodes. According to the desired treatment pattern, the plurality of electrodes can be disposed in various positions relative to one another. In a particular example, a plurality of electrodes can be disposed in a relatively circular pattern with a single electrode disposed in the interior of the circle, such as at approximately the center. Any configuration of electrodes is possible and the arrangement need not be circular but any shape periphery can be used depending on the area to be treated, including any regular or irregular polygon shape, including convex or concave polygon shapes. The single centrally located electrode can be a ground electrode while the other electrodes in the plurality can be energized. Any number of electrodes can be in the plurality such as from about 1 to 20. Indeed, even 3 electrodes can form a plurality of electrodes where one ground electrode is disposed between two electrodes capable of being energized, or 4 electrodes can be disposed in a manner to provide two electrode pairs (each pair comprising one ground and one electrode capable of being energized). During treatment, methods of treating can involve energizing the electrodes in any sequence, such as energizing one or more electrode simultaneously, and/or energizing one or more electrode in a particular sequence, such as sequentially, in an alternating pattern, in a skipping pattern, and/or energizing multiple electrodes but less than all electrodes simultaneously, for example.

In the embodiment shown, each probe 22 includes either a monopolar electrode or bipolar electrodes having two electrodes separated by an insulating sleeve. In one embodiment, if the probe includes a monopolar electrode, the amount of exposure of the active portion of the electrode can be adjusted by retracting or advancing an insulating sleeve relative to the electrode. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,344,533, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. The pulse generator 10 is connected to a treatment control computer 40 having input devices such as keyboard 12 and a pointing device 14, and an output device such as a display device 11 for viewing an image of a target treatment area such as a lesion 300 surrounded by a safety margin 301. The therapeutic energy delivery device 22 is used to treat a lesion 300 inside a patient 15. An imaging device 30 includes a monitor 31 for viewing the lesion 300 inside the patient 15 in real time. Examples of imaging devices 30 include ultrasonic, CT, MRI and fluoroscopic devices as are known in the art.

The present invention includes computer software (treatment planning module 54) which assists a user to plan for, execute, and review the results of a medical treatment procedure, as will be discussed in more detail below. For example, the treatment planning module 54 assists a user to plan for a medical treatment procedure by enabling a user to more accurately position each of the probes 22 of the therapeutic energy delivery device 20 in relation to the lesion 300 in a way that will generate the most effective treatment zone. The treatment planning module 54 can display the anticipated treatment zone based on the position of the probes and the treatment parameters. The treatment planning module 54 may also display a zone of temperature heating according to cutoff values inputted by the treating physician and correlate this with a value for the electric field distribution. The treatment planning module may also allow the treating physician to display the anticipated treatment zone, or target ablation zone, according to one or more tissue-specific conductivity parameters inputted by the treating physician. The conductivity parameters may include the baseline conductivity of the tissue to be treated, the ratio of the baseline conductivity to the maximum conductivity of the tissue that is reached during treatment, the rate at which the conductivity increases from the baseline to the maximum conductivity, and/or the electric field at which the conductivity changes during treatment.

The treatment planning module 54 can display the progress of the treatment in real time and can display the results of the treatment procedure after it is completed. This information can be displayed in a manner such that it can be used for example by a treating physician to determine whether the treatment was successful and/or whether it is necessary or desirable to re-treat the patient.

For purposes of this application, the terms “code”, “software”, “program”, “application”, “software code”, “computer readable code”, “software module”, “module” and “software program” are used interchangeably to mean software instructions that are executable by a processor. The “user” can be a physician or other medical professional. The treatment planning module 54 executed by a processor outputs various data including text and graphical data to the monitor 11 associated with the generator 10.

Referring now to FIG. 2, the treatment control computer 40 of the present invention manages planning of treatment for a patient. The computer 40 is connected to the communication link 52 through an I/O interface 42 such as a USB (universal serial bus) interface, which receives information from and sends information over the communication link 52 to the voltage generator 10. The computer 40 includes memory storage 44 such as RAM, processor (CPU) 46, program storage 48 such as ROM or EEPROM, and data storage 50 such as a hard disk, all commonly connected to each other through a bus 53. The program storage 48 stores, among others, a treatment planning module 54 which includes a user interface module that interacts with the user in planning for, executing and reviewing the result of a treatment. Any of the software program modules in the program storage 48 and data from the data storage 50 can be transferred to the memory 44 as needed and is executed by the CPU 46.

In one embodiment, the computer 40 is built into the voltage generator 10. In another embodiment, the computer 40 is a separate unit which is connected to the voltage generator through the communications link 52. In a preferred embodiment, the communication link 52 is a USB link. In one embodiment, the imaging device 30 is a standalone device which is not connected to the computer 40. In the embodiment as shown in FIG. 1, the computer 40 is connected to the imaging device 30 through a communications link 53. As shown, the communication link 53 is a USB link. In this embodiment, the computer can determine the size and orientation of the lesion 300 by analyzing the data such as the image data received from the imaging device 30, and the computer 40 can display this information on the monitor 11. In this embodiment, the lesion image generated by the imaging device 30 can be directly displayed on the grid (not shown) of the display device (monitor) 11 of the computer running the treatment planning module 54. This embodiment would provide an accurate representation of the lesion image on the grid, and may eliminate the step of manually inputting the dimensions of the lesion in order to create the lesion image on the grid. This embodiment would also be useful to provide an accurate representation of the lesion image if the lesion has an irregular shape.

It should be noted that the software can be used independently of the pulse generator 10. For example, the user can plan the treatment in a different computer as will be explained below and then save the treatment parameters to an external memory device, such as a USB flash drive (not shown). The data from the memory device relating to the treatment parameters can then be downloaded into the computer 40 to be used with the generator 10 for treatment. Additionally, the software can be used for hypothetical illustration of zones of ablation, temperature thresholds or cutoffs, and electrical field thresholds or cutoffs for training purposes to the user on therapies that deliver electrical energy. For example, the data can be evaluated by a human to determine or estimate favorable treatment protocols for a particular patient rather than programmed into a device for implementing the particular protocol.

FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of a circuitry to detect an abnormality in the applied pulses such as a high current, low current, high voltage or low voltage condition. This circuitry is located within the generator 10 (see FIG. 1). A USB connection 52 carries instructions from the user computer 40 to a controller 71. The controller can be a computer similar to the computer 40 as shown in FIG. 2. The controller 71 can include a processor, ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit), microcontroller or wired logic. The controller 71 then sends the instructions to a pulse generation circuit 72. The pulse generation circuit 72 generates the pulses and sends electrical energy to the probes. For clarity, only one pair of probes/electrodes are shown. However, the generator 10 can accommodate any number of probes/electrodes (e.g., from 1-10, such as 6 probes) and energizing multiple electrodes simultaneously for customizing the shape of the ablation zone. In the embodiment shown, the pulses are applied one pair of electrodes at a time, and then switched to another pair. The pulse generation circuit 72 includes a switch, preferably an electronic switch, that switches the probe pairs based on the instructions received from the computer 40. A sensor 73 such as a sensor can sense the current or voltage between each pair of the probes in real time and communicate such information to the controller 71, which in turn, communicates the information to the computer 40. If the sensor 73 detects an abnormal condition during treatment such as a high current or low current condition, then it will communicate with the controller 71 and the computer 40 which may cause the controller to send a signal to the pulse generation circuit 72 to discontinue the pulses for that particular pair of probes. The treatment planning module 54 can further include a feature that tracks the treatment progress and provides the user with an option to automatically retreat for low or missing pulses, or over-current pulses (see discussion below). Also, if the generator stops prematurely for any reason, the treatment planning module 54 can restart at the same point where it terminated, and administer the missing treatment pulses as part of the same treatment. In other embodiments, the treatment planning module 54 is able to detect certain errors during treatment, which include, but are not limited to, “charge failure”, “hardware failure”, “high current failure”, and “low current failure”.

General treatment protocols for the destruction (ablation) of undesirable tissue through electroporation are known. They involve the insertion (bringing) electroporation electrodes to the vicinity of the undesirable tissue and in good electrical contact with the tissue and the application of electrical pulses that cause irreversible electroporation of the cells throughout the entire area of the undesirable tissue. The cells whose membrane was irreversible permeabilized may be removed or left in situ (not removed) and as such may be gradually removed by the body's immune system. Cell death is produced by inducing the electrical parameters of irreversible electroporation in the undesirable area.

Electroporation protocols involve the generation of electrical fields in tissue and are affected by the Joule heating of the electrical pulses. When designing tissue electroporation protocols it is important to determine the appropriate electrical parameters that will maximize tissue permeabilization without inducing deleterious thermal effects. It has been shown that substantial volumes of tissue can be electroporated with reversible electroporation without inducing damaging thermal effects to cells and has quantified these volumes (Davalos, R. V., B. Rubinsky, and L. M. Mir, Theoretical analysis of the thermal effects during in vivo tissue electroporation. Bioelectrochemistry, 2003. Vol. 61(1-2): p. 99-107).

The electrical pulses used to induce irreversible electroporation in tissue are typically larger in magnitude and duration from the electrical pulses required for reversible electroporation. Further, the duration and strength of the pulses for irreversible electroporation are different from other methodologies using electrical pulses such as for intracellular electro-manipulation or thermal ablation. The methods are very different even when the intracellular (nano-seconds) electro-manipulation is used to cause cell death, e.g. ablate the tissue of a tumor or when the thermal effects produce damage to cells causing cell death.

Typical values for pulse length for irreversible electroporation are in a range of from about 5 microseconds to about 62,000 milliseconds or about 75 microseconds to about 20,000 milliseconds or about 100 microseconds±10 microseconds. This is significantly longer than the pulse length generally used in intracellular (nano-seconds) electro-manipulation which is 1 microsecond or less—see published U.S. application 2002/0010491 published Jan. 24, 2002.

The pulse is typically administered at voltage of about 100 V/cm to 7,000 V/cm or 200 V/cm to 2000 V/cm or 300V/cm to 1000 V/cm about 600 V/cm for irreversible electroporation. This is substantially lower than that used for intracellular electro-manipulation which is about 10,000 V/cm, see U.S. application 2002/0010491 published Jan. 24, 2002.

The voltage expressed above is the voltage gradient (voltage per centimeter). The electrodes may be different shapes and sizes and be positioned at different distances from each other. The shape may be circular, oval, square, rectangular or irregular etc. The distance of one electrode to another may be 0.5 to 10 cm, 1 to 5 cm, or 2-3 cm. The electrode may have a surface area of 0.1-5 sq. cm or 1-2 sq. cm.

The size, shape and distances of the electrodes can vary and such can change the voltage and pulse duration used. Those skilled in the art will adjust the parameters in accordance with this disclosure to obtain the desired degree of electroporation and avoid thermal damage to surrounding cells.

Additional features of protocols for electroporation therapy are provided in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0043345 A1, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

In one aspect, the systems and methods may have the capability for estimating a volume of tissue that will be heated at or above a cutoff value and a volume of tissue that will receive an electric field at or above a cutoff value for the above medical treatment device. The cut-off values may be user-specified values determined by a treating physician or technician. The systems and methods are provided so that the treating physician may recognize treatments that produce overheating in the vicinity of the electrodes of the treatment device. This additional capability of the treatment device may be based on the Joule heating equations of Example 8. The values may be plotted as contour lines which may be displayed with a graphical representation of the estimated treatment volume above. In one embodiment, the contour lines are Cassini oval approximations performed according to the equations and procedure in Example 7.

In another aspect, the systems and methods may have the additional capability for providing the electric field distributions using different configurations of bipolar probes and include the dynamic change in electrical conductivity from the baseline non-electroporated tissue. The systems and methods may allow a user to incorporate tissue-specific values for the dynamic change in conductivity in estimating a treatment volume. This additional capability is further described in Example 9. In one embodiment, the contour lines are Cassini oval approximations performed according to the equations and procedure in Example 7.

In another aspect, the systems and methods may have the additional capability for inputting or adjusting one or more variables related to the dynamic conductivity so that tissue-specific behavior can be accounted for when estimating a treatment volume. In embodiments, the treatment planning module may provide input for parameters such as the baseline conductivity, change in conductivity, the transition zone (how rapidly the conductivity increases), the electric field at which the change in conductivity occurs, and the electric field at which irreversible electroporation occurs. These parameters may allow the treating physician to fine-tune the ablation zone based on the conductivity characteristics of the target tissue. The present inventors have recognized that the conductivity characteristics of the tissue, such as baseline and maximum conductivities, should be determined before the therapy in order to determine safe and effective pulse protocols. This additional capability is further described in Example 10.

The numerical models and algorithms of the invention, as provided in the Examples, such as Cassini Oval equations of Example 7 and the Joule Heating Model equations of Example 8, can be implemented in a system for estimating a 3-dimensional treatment volume for a medical treatment device that applies treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes defining a treatment area. In one embodiment, the numerical models and algorithms are implemented in an appropriate computer readable code as part of the treatment planning module 54 of the system of the invention. Computing languages available to the skilled artisan for programming the treatment planning module 54 include general purpose computing languages such as the C and related languages, and statistical programming languages such as the “S” family of languages, including R and S-Plus. The computer readable code may be stored in a memory 44 of the system of the invention. A processor 46 is coupled to the memory 44 and a display device 11 and the treatment planning module 54 stored in the memory 44 is executable by the processor 46. Treatment planning module 54, through the implemented numerical models, is adapted to generate a graphical display of an estimated temperature or electric field or target ablation zone in the display device 11.

In one embodiment, the invention provides for a system for estimating and graphically displaying a thermal and/or electric field value for a medical treatment device that applies treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes 22 defining a treatment area, the system comprising a memory 44, a display device 11, a processor 46 coupled to the memory 44 and the display device 11, and a treatment planning module 54 stored in the memory 44 and executable by the processor 46, the treatment planning module 54 adapted to generate one or more isocontours representing a value of a temperature and/or electric field for display in the display device 11 based on modeling of the temperature distributions or electrical field distributions according to one or more parameters defining an electrical energy based protocol (e.g., irreversible electroporation). The results of modeling the temperature distributions and electrical field distributions may be stored in a database or calculated in real-time. The treatment planning module may generate the isocontours based on the modeling results.

In another embodiment, the invention provides for a system for estimating a target ablation zone for a medical treatment device that applies treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes 22 defining a treatment area, the system comprising a memory 44, a display device 11, a processor 46 coupled to the memory 44 and the display device 11, and a treatment planning module 54 stored in the memory 44 and executable by the processor 46, the treatment planning module 54 adapted to generate a target ablation zone in the display device 11 based on a combination of one or more parameters for a treatment protocol for irreversible electroporation and one or more tissue-specific conductivity parameters.

The foregoing description provides additional instructions and algorithms for a computer programmer to implement in computer readable code a treatment planning module 54 that may be executable through a processor 46 to generate an estimated temperature or electrical field for display in the display device 11 based on modeling of a tissue according to one or more parameters for electroporation, such as IRE. The computer readable code may also estimate a temperature value and an electric field value according to equations described in Example 8 and graphically display these value as contour lines in the display device. In one embodiment, the contour lines are Cassini oval approximations performed according to the equations and procedure in Example 7. The computer readable code may also provide for input on one or more conductivity parameters for estimating the target ablation zone as described in Examples 9 and 10.

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram showing a three-dimensional zone of ablation occurring during irreversible electroporation. The width and depth of this zone of ablation may be modeled two-dimensionally using the Cassini oval equation. Further, the mathematical fit of the zone of ablation has similar shape characteristics as the actual and simulated electric field and temperature values. For example, a typical single bi-polar probe will be configured to have a first and second electrode spaced apart from each other at the distal end of the single probe. Since the lesion formed by this bi-polar arrangement closely resembles the 8-like shape of the electric field, the method of the invention can be used to accurately predict the electric field and temperature contours. FIGS. 16A and 16B show variations of ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters that will closely resemble the 8-like shape of the electric field according to the Cassini Equation.

The method of the invention fits data extracted from numerical simulations to both the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters from the Cassini Equation, providing the flexibility to match potentially any shape of electric field created by the specific pulse parameters employed. Also, as illustrated in FIGS. 16A and 16B since the ‘a’ or ‘b’ parameters are not related to the separation distance or geometry of the electrodes, the electric field and temperature contours of the bi-polar probe can be captured according to the techniques described above.

Additionally, by adding the cumulative effects of electrode pairs, the electric field and thermal contours of alternative multi-electrode arrangements of three or more probes can be determined. For example, a four single probe electrode box can be captured by calculating treatment regions based on each combination of electrode pairs for the fit according to the techniques described above. Thus, for example, if the four probe electrode box is configured for treatment using pulses that cycle through probe combinations 1-2, 3-4, 1-3, 2-4, 2-3 and 1-4 the approximation tool can find electric field and temperature contours for each probe combination, then superimpose the results to display the cumulative effect of that particular pulse protocol in the treatment region.

In one embodiment, the treatment planning module 54 provides for a method for modeling and graphical display of tissue heating according to a set of parameters defining a treatment protocol. In a specific embodiment, the set of parameters correspond to a treatment protocol for inducing irreversible electroporation in a tissue.

The treatment planning module 54 may provide one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or more or a plurality of electrodes.

The treatment planning module 54 may model a heat distribution in a tissue surrounding the one or more or the plurality of electrodes based on the one or more parameters.

The treatment planning module 54 may provide a graphical representation of the heat distribution based on the modeled heat distribution.

The treatment planning module 54 may allow a user to optionally modify one or more of the parameters of the treatment protocol through input devices 12, 14 based on the graphical representation of the heat distribution.

The treatment planning module 54 may be in operable connection with a controller 71 capable of delivering one or more electrical pulses to the tissue based on the one or more parameters stored in the treatment planning module 54.

The treatment planning module 54 may model the heat distribution in the tissue based on the Joule heating in the tissue.

The treatment planning module 54 may calculate the heat distribution as:

$ρ C_{p} \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot (k \nabla T) + Q_{j h} [\frac{W}{m^{3}}]$

where ρ is the density, C_pis the heat capacity, k is the thermal conductivity, and Q_jhare the resistive losses

$Q_{j h} = J \cdot E [\frac{W}{m^{3}}]$

where J is the induced current density

$J = σ E [\frac{A}{m^{2}}]$

and σ is the tissue conductivity and E is the electric field

$E = - \nabla ϕ [\frac{V}{m}]$

The treatment planning module may further calculate the resistive losses as

jh·Qrh=((jh·Jix+jh·Jex)*duty_cycle*jh·Ex(jh·Jiy+jh·Jey)*duty_cycle*jh·Ey+(jh·Jiz+jh·Jez)*duty_cycle*jh·Ez)*(t<=90)+0*(t>90)

according to the Joule Heating Model described in Example 8.

The treatment planning module 54 may allow a user to specify a heat distribution value (i.e. temperature) and may provide a graphical representation of the temperature as an isocontour line.

The treatment planning module 54 may model an electric field distribution in a tissue surrounding the one or more or a plurality of electrodes based on the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol.

The treatment planning module 54 may provide a graphical representation of the electric field distribution based on the modeled electrical field distribution.

The treatment planning module may calculate the electric field distribution as:

∇²ϕ=0

where ϕ is the electric potential, this equation is solved with boundary conditions:

{right arrow over (n)}·{right arrow over (J)}=0 at the boundaries

ϕ=V_inat the boundary of the first electrode

ϕ=0 at the boundary of the second electrode

wherein {right arrow over (n)} is the normal vector to the surface, {right arrow over (J)} is the electrical current and V_inis the electrical potential applied.

The treatment planning module 54 may allow a user to specify a value for an electrical field distribution and provide a graphical representation of the electrical field distribution value as an isocontour line.

The treatment planning module 54 may display isocontour lines representing the heat and electrical field distributions by calculating a Cassini oval according to Example 7. The Cassini oval may be calculated by first modeling the temperature and electrical field distributions, storing the values in a database, and then calculating the specific Cassini oval based on parameters chosen by the user.

The treatment planning module 54 may allow a user to specify the one or more parameters of a treatment protocol including voltage, gap between electrodes, duration, pulse width, and electric field intensity.

Alternatively, or in addition, the treatment planning module 54 may allow a user to input one or more of the tissue-specific conductivity parameters described herein and model the electric field distribution and tissue heating. The treatment planning module 54 may then provide graphical representations of one or more values of the electrical field intensity and tissue temperature.

The treatment planning module 54 may provide a graphical representation of an electrical field distribution and a heat distribution through a variety of modes of operation. First, the treatment planning module 54 may model the electrical field distribution and heat distribution for each set of parameters that are entered through input devices 12, 14. Thus, every time the treating physician altered one or more parameters of the treatment protocol, the treatment planning module 54 software would model the electrical field and heat distributions according to those parameters and then graphically display them on the display device 11. In a second approach, the software would first run the modeling of the heat and electrical field distributions for a wide range of parameter combinations and store the resulting distributions in the database stored in memory 44. In this approach, when the treating physician enters a particular combination of parameters, the treatment planning module 54 retrieves the heat distribution and electrical field distribution from values stored in the database. These values are then used as a basis for Cassini oval calculations to determine specific contours for the particular combination of parameters. The Cassini oval calculations are performed according to the equations and procedure described in Example 7. The Cassini ovals are then graphically displayed on the display device 11 in real time. In embodiments, specific contours are provided according to values for temperature or electrical field intensity set by the user.

The treatment planning module 54 may model the heat and electric field distributions according to mathematical formulas. In a specific embodiment, the treatment planning module 54 may model the heat distribution and the electrical field distribution according to the formulas in Example 8.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a system for treating a tissue, which system applies electrical treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes defining a target treatment area of the tissue. The system comprises a computer 40 comprising: a memory 44, a display device 11, a processor 46 coupled to the memory 44 and the display device 11; and a treatment planning module 54 stored in the memory 44 and executable by the processor 46. In this embodiment, the treatment planning module 54 is adapted to: provide one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or more or a plurality of electrodes; model a heat distribution in a tissue surrounding the at least electrode based on the one or more parameters; provide a graphical representation of the heat distribution on the display device 11 based on the modeled heat distribution. The system further comprises input devices 12, 14 in operable connection with computer 40, which input devices are capable of modifying the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol in the treatment planning module 54. The system further comprises a generator 10 in operable connection with the computer through a controller 71, which controller 71 is capable of instructing the generator 10 to deliver the one or more electrical pulses to the target tissue through the one or more or the plurality of electrodes 22 based on the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol stored in the treatment planning module 54. The system may further comprise one or more databases stored in the memory 44 for storing the modeled heat distributions or modeled electric field distributions for a plurality of sets of parameters for a treatment protocol.

In another embodiment, the treatment planning module 54, in addition to providing one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or more or a plurality of electrodes, may also provide one or more conductivity parameters specific for the tissue to be treated.

The treatment planning module 54 may estimate the target ablation zone based on the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol and the one or more electrical flow characteristics. The treatment planning module may also display a graphical representation of the estimation in the display device 11.

The treatment planning module 54 may optionally allow for modification of one or more of the parameters of the treatment protocol through input devices 12, 14 based on the graphical representation of the target ablation zone.

Additionally, the treatment planning module 54 may be in operable communication with a controller 77 and provide one or more parameters to the controller for delivering one or more electrical pulses to the tissue.

The treatment planning module 54 may provide one or more parameters of a treatment protocol comprise voltage, gap between electrodes, duration, pulse width, and electric field intensity.

Additionally, the one or more conductivity parameters provided by the treatment planning module 54 may comprise the baseline conductivity of the tissue to be treated, the ratio of the baseline conductivity to the maximum conductivity of the tissue that is reached during treatment, the rate at which the conductivity increases from the baseline to the maximum conductivity, or the electric field at which the conductivity changes during treatment.

Additionally, one or more conductivity parameters for a plurality of tissues may be provided in a database stored in memory 44.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a system for treating a tissue, which system applies electrical treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes 22 defining a target treatment area of the tissue. The system may comprise a computer 40 comprising a memory 44, a display device 11, a processor 46 coupled to memory 44 and the display device 11, and a treatment planning module 54 stored in the memory 44 and executable by the processor 46. The treatment planning module 54 may be adapted to provide one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or more or a plurality of electrodes, provide one or more conductivity parameters specific for the tissue to be treated, estimate the target ablation zone and display a graphical representation of the estimation in the display device based on the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol and the one or more conductivity parameters. The system may further comprise input devices 12, 14 in operable connection with the computer 40, which input devices 12, 14 are capable of allowing a user to modify the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol in the treatment planning module 54. The system may further comprise a generator 10 in operable connection with the computer 40 through a controller 71, which controller 71 is capable of instructing the generator 10 to deliver the one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through the one or more or the plurality of electrodes 22 based on the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol stored in the treatment planning module 54. Additionally, the system may comprise a database of conductivity parameters for a plurality of tissues stored in the memory 44.

The systems of the invention may be further configured to include software for displaying a Graphical User Interface in the display device with various screens for input and display of information, including those for inputting various parameters or display of graphical representations of zones of temperature, electrical field, and ablation. Additionally, the Graphical User Interface (GUI) may allow a user to input one or more values related to an irreversible electroporation protocol and tissue-specific conductivity measurements through the use of text fields, check boxes, pull-downs, sliders, command buttons, tabs, and the like.

In one embodiment, the invention provides a method of treating a tissue with a medical treatment device that applies electrical treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes defining a target treatment area of the tissue and that comprises a display device. The method may comprise providing one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or more or a plurality of electrodes, modeling a heat distribution in a tissue surrounding the at least electrode based on the one or more parameters, displaying a graphical representation of the heat distribution based on the modeled heat distribution in the display device, modifying one or more of the parameters of the treatment protocol based on the graphical representation of the heat distribution, and implanting one or a plurality of electrodes in the tissue and delivering one or more electrical pulses to the tissue through the electrodes based on the one or more modified parameters.

In an exemplary implementation of the method, a treating physician identifies a target treatment area in a tissue of a patient. For example, the target treatment area may be a tumor that is unresectable by conventional surgical methods. The treating physician then uses input devices 12, 14 such as a keyboard or mouse to interact with the treatment planning module 54 to select and input one or more parameters for designing an irreversible electroporation treatment protocol for ablating the tumor. The treating physician then selects a temperature value to graphically display a temperature contour profile in the target treatment area on the display device 11. For example, the treating physician may select a value of 50° C. The treating physician then may correlate this temperature contour with imaging from the treatment area, by overlaying the temperature contour with the imaging on the display device 11. By visualizing the temperature contour relative to the imaging, the treating physician then may identify structures surrounding the treatment area such as nerves and blood vessels that may be subject to thermal damage. The treating physician then may modify the irreversible electroporation parameters so that the temperature contour no longer indicates that critical structures may be subject to overheating. Irreversible electroporation parameters that may be modified include the voltage, distance between electrodes, electrode diameter, period of treatment, pulse width, number of pulses, and electric field. Similarly, the treatment planning module 54 may allow the treating physician to visualize a temperature contour relative to an electric field contour. Through one or more iterations of adjustment of the irreversible electroporation parameters and visualization of the temperature contour and electric field contour on the display device, the treating physician may ultimately select a final set of irreversible electroporation parameters to be used for treatment. The treating physician may then implant a pair of electrodes at the target treatment area in the tissue and deliver a plurality of electrical pulses to the treatment area based on the final set of irreversible electroporation parameters.

Thus, one embodiment of the method may comprise one or more of: 1. identifying a target treatment area in a tissue of a patient; 2. selecting and inputting one or more parameters for designing an irreversible electroporation treatment protocol for the target treatment area; 3. selecting a temperature value to graphically display a temperature contour in a simulation of the target treatment area; 4. correlating the temperature contour with imaging from the treatment area; 5. Identifying structures within or surrounding the target treatment area such as nerves and blood vessels that may be subject to thermal damage based on the temperature contour; 6. modifying the irreversible electroporation parameters through one or more iterations so that the temperature contour no longer indicates that critical structures may be subject to overheating; 7. selecting a final set of irreversible electroporation parameters to be used for treatment; and 8. implanting a pair of electrodes at the target treatment area in the tissue and delivering a plurality of electrical pulses to the treatment area based on the final set of irreversible electroporation parameters.

The target treatment area may be imaged through a variety of imaging modalities including Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Ultrasound, Positron Emission Tomography (PET), and the like. The imaging devices may be operably connected with the display device 11 so that results of the imaging may overlap or otherwise be available for comparison with the graphical display of the temperature and electric field contours.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a method of treating a tissue with a medical treatment device that applies electrical treatment energy through one or more or a plurality of electrodes defining a target treatment area of the tissue, which medical treatment device comprises a display device. The method may comprise providing one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or a plurality of electrodes, and one or more conductivity parameters specific for the tissue to be treated, estimating the target ablation zone and displaying a graphical representation of the estimation in the display device based on the one or more parameters of the treatment protocol and the one or more conductivity parameters, modifying one or more of the parameters of the treatment protocol based on the graphical representation of the target ablation zone, and implanting one or a plurality of electrodes in the tissue and delivering one or more electrical pulses to the tissue through the electrodes based on the one or more modified parameters. In the context of this specification, when referring to implanting an electrode, one or more of the electrode(s) can alternatively or in addition be placed near, or contact, or otherwise be operably disposed in a manner to administer electrical energy to the tissue.

The one or more conductivity parameters may include the baseline conductivity, change in conductivity, the transition zone (how rapidly the conductivity increases), the electric field at which the change in conductivity occurs, and the electric field at which irreversible electroporation occurs. After selecting the one or more conductivity parameters, the treatment planning module 54 may display a modified ablation zone on the display device 11 based on the tissue-specific conductivity characteristics inputted by the physician. The treating physician then may alter the one or more parameters of the irreversible electroporation protocol to modify the target ablation zone on the display device 11 to fit a desired area of treatment. The treating physician may then strategically place (e.g., implant) a pair of electrodes at the target treatment area in the tissue and deliver a plurality of electrical pulses to the treatment area based on the final set of irreversible electroporation parameters.

Thus, one embodiment of the method may comprise one or more of: 1. identifying a target treatment area in a tissue of a patient; 2. selecting and inputting one or more parameters for designing an irreversible electroporation treatment protocol for the target treatment area; 3. displaying a graphical representation of a target ablation zone on a display device; 4. selecting and inputting one or more conductivity characteristics based on the specific tissue to be treated; 5. displaying a modified graphical representation of the target ablation zone based on the tissue-specific conductivity characteristics; 6. modifying the one or more parameters of the irreversible electroporation protocol to fit a desired area of treatment; and 7. disposing/implanting a pair of electrodes at the target treatment area in the tissue and delivering a plurality of electrical pulses to the treatment area based on the modified IRE parameters.

As will be apparent to a skilled artisan, the systems and methods described above may be compatible with a variety of bi-polar and mono-polar probe combinations and configurations. Additionally, the calculations may be extended to not only display an electric field and temperature but also using that information to calculate an electrical damage and thermal damage component which take into account the time of exposure to the electric field and temperatures and can be tissue-specific such as for liver, kidney, etc. The systems and methods may be capable of displaying information such as “electric damage” or “thermal damage” once the electric field and temperature contours are determined, based on predetermined values for electric damage and thermal damage in the given tissue type. “Electric damage” and “thermal damage” regions can be visualized in place of or in combination with electric field and temperature as isocontour lines, shaded or highlighted areas, or other forms of graphical representation. In addition, the inclusion of tissue-specific in-vivo derived data including blood flow, metabolic heat generation, and one or more conductivity parameters such as tissue conductivity and ratios of changing conductivity can be included to reflect dynamic changes within a specific tissue type.

Additional details of the algorithms and numerical models disclosed herein will be provided in the following Examples, which are intended to further illustrate rather than limit the invention.

In Example 1, the present inventors provide a numerical model that uses an asymmetrical Gompertz function to describe the response of porcine renal tissue to electroporation pulses. However, other functions could be used to represent the electrical response of tissue under exposure to pulsed electric fields such as a sigmoid function, ramp, and/or interpolation table. This model can be used to determine baseline conductivity of tissue based on any combination of electrode exposure length, separation distance, and non-electroporating electric pulses. In addition, the model can be scaled to the baseline conductivity and used to determine the maximum electric conductivity after the electroporation-based treatment. By determining the ratio of conductivities pre- and post-treatment, it is possible to predict the shape of the electric field distribution and thus the treatment volume based on electrical measurements. An advantage of this numerical model is that it is easy to implement in computer software code in the system of the invention and no additional electronics or numerical simulations are needed to determine the electric conductivities. The system and method of the invention can also be adapted for other electrode geometries (sharp electrodes, bipolar probes), electrode diameter, and other tissues/tumors once their response to different electric fields has been fully characterized.

The present inventors provide further details of this numerical modeling as well as experiments that confirm this numerical modeling in Example 2. In developing this work, the present inventors were motivated to develop an IRE treatment planning method and system that accounts for real-time voltage/current measurements. As a result of this work, the system and method of the invention requires no electronics or electrodes in addition to the NANOKNIFE® System, a commercial embodiment of a system for electroporation-based therapies. The work shown in Example 2 is based on parametric study using blunt tip electrodes, but can be customized to any other geometry (sharp, plate, bipolar). The numerical modeling in Example 2 provides the ability to determine a baseline tissue conductivity based on a low voltage pre-IRE pulse (non-electroporating ˜50 V/cm), as well as the maximum tissue conductivity based on high voltage IRE pulses (during electroporation) and low voltage post-IRE pulse (non-electroporating ˜50 V/cm). Two numerical models were developed that examined 720 or 1440 parameter combinations. Results on IRE lesion were based on in vitro measurements. A major finding of the modeling in Example 2 is that the electric field distribution depends on conductivity ratio pre- and post-IRE. Experimental and clinical IRE studies may be used to determine this ratio. As a result, one can determine e-field thresholds for tissue and tumor based on measurements. The 3-D model of Example 2 captures depth, width, and height e-field distributions.

In Example 3, as a further extension of the inventors work, the inventors show prediction of IRE treatment volume based on 1000 V/cm, 750 v/cm, and 500 V/cm IRE thresholds as well as other factors as a representative case of the numerical modeling of the invention.

In Example 4, the inventors describe features of the Specific Conductivity and procedures for implementing it in the invention.

In Example 5, the inventors describe in vivo experiments as a reduction to practice of the invention.

In Example 6, the inventors describe how to use the ratio of maximum conductivity to baseline conductivity in modifying the electric field distribution and thus the Cassini oval equation.

In Example 7, the inventors describe the Cassini oval equation and its implementation in the invention.

In Example 8, the inventors describe mapping of electric field and thermal contours using a simplified data cross-referencing approach.

In Example 9, the inventors describe visualization of electric field distributions using different configurations of bipolar probes.

In Example 10, the inventors describe a method for determining the IRE threshold for different tissues according to one or more conductivity parameters.

In Example 11, the inventors describe correlating experimental and numerical IRE lesions using the bipolar probe.

EXAMPLES
Example 1
Materials and Methods

The tissue was modeled as a 10-cm diameter spherical domain using a finite element package (Comsol 4.2a, Stockholm, Sweden). Electrodes were modeled as two 1.0-mm diameter blunt tip needles with exposure lengths (Y) and edge-to-edge separation distances (X) given in Table 1. The electrode domains were subtracted from the tissue domain, effectively modeling the electrodes as boundary conditions.

TABLE 1

Electrode configuration and relevant

electroporation-based treatment values used in study.

PARAMETER VALUES
MEAN

W [V/cm]
500, 1000, 1500, 2000,
1750

2500, 3000

X [cm]
0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5
1.5

Y [cm]
0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0
1.75

Z [cm]
1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0,
2.968

5.0, 6.0
75

The electric field distribution associated with the applied pulse is given by solving the Laplace equation:

∇·(σ(|E|)∇φ)=0 (1)

where σ is the electrical conductivity of the tissue, E is the electric field in V/cm, and φ is the electrical potential (Edd and Davalos, 2007). Boundaries along the tissue in contact with the energized electrode were defined as φ=V_o, and boundaries at the interface of the other electrode were set to ground. The applied voltages were manipulated to ensure that the voltage-to-distance ratios (VV) corresponded to those in Table 1. The remaining boundaries were treated as electrically insulating, ∂φ/∂n=0.

The analyzed domain extends far enough from the area of interest (i.e. the area near the electrodes) that the electrically insulating boundaries at the edges of the domain do not significantly influence the results in the treatment zone. The physics-controlled finer mesh with ˜100,000 elements was used. The numerical models have been adapted to account for a dynamic tissue conductivity that occurs as a result of electroporation, which is described by an asymmetrical Gompertz curve for renal porcine tissue (Neal et al., 2012):

σ(|E|)=σ_o+(σ_max−σ_o)exp[−A·exp[−B·E] (2)

where σ_ois the non-electroporated tissue conductivity and σ_maxis the maximum conductivity for thoroughly permeabilized cells, A and B are coefficients for the displacement and growth rate of the curve, respectively. Here, it is assumed that σ_o=0.1 S/m but this value can be scaled by a factor to match any other non-electroporated tissue conductivity or material as determined by a pre-treatment pulse. In this work the effect of the ratio of maximum conductivity to baseline conductivity in the resulting electric current was examined using the 50-μs pulse parameters (A=3.05271; B=0.00233) reported by Neal et al. (Neal et. al., 2012). The asymmetrical Gompertz function showing the tissue electric conductivity as a function of electric field is, for example, shown in FIG. 5.

The current density was integrated over the surface of the ground electrode to determine the total current delivered. A regression analysis on the resulting current was performed to determine the effect of the parameters investigated and their interactions using the NonlinearModelFit function in Wolfram Mathematica 8.0. Current data from the numerical simulations were fit to a mathematical expression that accounted for all possible interactions between the parameters:

I=factor·[aW+bX+cY+dZ+e(W−W)(X−X)+f(W−W)(Y−Y)+g(W−W)(Z−Z)+h(X−X)(Y−Y)+i(X−X)(Z−Z)+j(Y−Y)(Z−Z)+k(W−W)(X−X)(Y−Y)+l(X−X)(Y−Y)(Z−Z)+m(W−W)(Y−Y)(Z−Z)+n(W−W)(X−X)(Z−Z)+o(W−W)(X−X)(Y−Y)(Z−Z)+p] (3)

where I is the current in amps, W is the voltage-to-distance ratio [V/cm], X is the edge-to-edge distance [cm], Y is the exposure length [cm], and Z is the unitless ratio σ_max/σ_o. The W, X, Y, and Z are means for each of their corresponding parameters (Table 1) and the coefficients (a, b, c, . . . , n, o, p) were determined from the regression analysis (Table 2).

Results.

A method to determine electric conductivity change following treatment based on current measurements and electrode configuration is provided. The best-fit statistical (numerical) model between the W, X, Y, and Z parameters resulted in Eqn. 3 with the coefficients in Table 2 (R²=0.999646). Every coefficient and their interactions had statistical significant effects on the resulting current (P<0.0001*). With this equation one can predict the current for any combination of the W, Y, X, Z parameters studied within their ranges (500 V/cm≤W≤3000 V/cm, 0.5 cm≤X≤2.5 cm, 0.5 cm≤Y≤3.0 cm, and 1.0≤Z≤6.0). Additionally, by using the linear results (Z=1), the baseline tissue conductivity can be extrapolated for any blunt-tip electrode configuration by delivering and measuring the current of a non-electroporating pre-treatment pulse. The techniques described in this specification could also be used to determine the conductivity of other materials, such as non-biological materials, or phantoms.

TABLE 2

Coefficients (P < 0.0001*) from the Least Square analysis

using the NonlinearModelFit function in Mathematica.

ESTIMATE

a →
0.00820

b →
7.18533

c →
5.80997

d →
3.73939

e →
0.00459

f →
0.00390

g →
0.00271

h →
3.05537

i →
2.18763

j →
1.73269

k →
0.00201

l →
0.92272

m →
0.00129

n →
0.00152

o →
0.00067

p →
−33.92640

FIG. 6 shows a representative case in which the effect of the W and Z are studied for electroporation-based therapies with 2.0 cm electrodes separated by 1.5 cm. The 3D plot corroborates the quality of the model which shows every data point from the numerical simulation (green spheres) being intersected by the best-fit statistical (numerical) model. This 3D plot also shows that when Z is kept constant, the current increases linearly with the voltage-to-distance ratio (W). Similarly, the current increases linearly with Z when the voltage-to-distance ratio is constant. However, for all the other scenarios there is a non-linear response in the current that becomes more drastic with simultaneous increases in Wand Z

In order to fully understand the predictive capability of the statistical (numerical) model, two cases in which the current is presented as a function of the exposure length and electrode separation are provided. FIG. 7A shows the linear case (Z=1) in which the current can be scaled to predict any other combination of pulse parameters as long as the pulses do not achieve electroporation. For example, one can deliver a non-electroporation pulse (˜50 V/cm) and measure current. The current can then be scaled to match one of the W values investigated in this study. By using Eqn. 3 and solving for the factor, the baseline electric conductivity of the tissue can be determined and used for treatment planning. FIG. 7B is the case in which the maximum electric conductivity was 0.4 S/m (Z=4) after electroporation. The trends are similar to the ones described in FIG. 5 in that if exposure length is constant, the current increases linearly with increasing electrode separation and vice versa. However, even though the conductivity within the treated region increases by a factor of 4, the current increases non-linearly only by a factor of 3. This can be seen by comparing the contours in FIG. 7A with those in FIG. 7B which consistently show that the curves are increased by a factor of 3.

Example 2
Determining the Relationship between Blunt Tip Electrode Configuration and Resulting Current after IRE Treatment

Model Assumptions:

Gompertz Conductivity: Pulse duration=50 μs, Ex-vivo kidney tissue

Baseline Conductivity: σ=0.1 S/m

Spherical Domain: diameter=10 cm

Applied Voltage: Voltage=1000 V

Parametric Study:

Total Combinations: 720 models

Maximum Conductivity: 1.0×, 1.25×, 1.5×, 2×, 3×, 4×, 5×, 6× the baseline

Edge-to-edge Distance: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 mm

Electrode Exposure: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 mm

Electrode Radius: 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 mm

The output of statistical analysis software (JMP 9.0) used to fit model and determine the coefficients for all parameter combinations is shown in the tables of FIGS. 8A and 8B and the plot of FIG. 8C.

Parameters of Best Fit for Dynamic Conductivity Changes between 1×-6× the Baseline Conductivity (R²=0.96):

a=−1.428057; (*Intercept Estimate*)

b=−0.168944; (*Gap Estimate*)

c=2.1250608; (*Radius Estimate*)

d=0.2101464; (*Exposure Estimate*)

e=1.1114726; (*Factor Estimate*)

f=−0.115352; (*Gap-Radius Estimate*)

g=−0.010131; (*Gap-Exposure Estimate*)

h=−0.067208; (*Gap-Factor*)

i=0.0822932; (*Radius-Exposure Estimate*)

j=0.4364513; (*Radius-Factor Estimate*)

k=0.0493234; (*Exposure-Factor Estimate*)

l=−0.006104; (*Gap-Radius-Exposure Estimate*)

m=0.0165237; (*Radius-Exposure-Factor Estimate*)*)

n=−0.003861; (*Gap-Exposure-Factor Estimate*)

o=−0.041303; (*Gap-Radius-Factor Estimate*)

p=−0.002042; (*Gap-Radius-Exposure-Factor Estimate*)

Analytical Function for Dynamic Conductivity Changes Between 1×-6× the Baseline Conductivity (R²=0.96):

5 mm<gap=x<25 mm, 0.5 mm<radius=y<1.0 mm,

5 mm<exposure=z<30 mm, 1<factor=w<6

Default conductivity of 0.1 S/m and 1000 V which can be scaled for dynamic conductivities. The function is a linear combination of all iterations examined in the parametric study:

Current(w,x,y,z)=a+bx+cy+dz+ew+f(x+bb)(y+cc)+g(x+bb)(z+dd)+h(x+bb)(w+ee)+i(y+cc)(z+dd)+j(y+cc)(w+ee)+k(z+dd)(w+ee)+l(x+bb)(y+cc)+m(y+cc)(z+dd)(w+ee)+n(x+bb)(z+dd)(w+ee)+o(x+bb)(y+cc)(w+ee)+p(x+bb)(y+cc)(z+dd)(w+ee)

FIGS. 9A-9E show the representative (15 mm gap) correlation between current vs. exposure length and electrode radius for maximum conductivities (1×-6×, respectively).

FIGS. 10A and 10B are tables showing experimental validation of the code for determining the tissue/potato dynamic conductivity from in vitro measurements.

Determining the Relationship Between Blunt Tip Electrode Configuration and e-Field Distribution after IRE Treatment

Model Assumptions:

Gompertz Conductivity: Pulse duration=50 μs, Ex-vivo kidney tissue

Baseline Conductivity: σ=0.1 S/m

Spherical Domain: diameter=10 cm

Electrode Radius: r=0.5 mm

Parametric Study:

Total Combinations: 1440 models

Maximum Conductivity: 1.0×, 1.25×, 1.5×, 2×, 3×, 4×, 5×, 6× the baseline

Edge-to-edge Distance: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 mm

Electrode Exposure: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 mm

Voltage-to-distance Ratio: 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 V/cm

Example 3

Comparison of analytical solutions with statistical (numerical) model to calculate current and explanation of procedure that results in 3D IRE volume.

The process of backing-out the electrical conductivity using the analytical solutions and the one proposed in the “Towards a Predictive Model of Electroporation-Based Therapies using Pre-Pulse Electrical Measurements” abstract presented in the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference in Aug. 28, 2012 in San Diego, Calif. were compared. A method to determine the predictive power of the equations to calculate current is analyzing the residuals of the 1440 combinations of parameters examined. In the context of this specification, a residual is the difference between the predicted current and the actual current. As can be seen in FIGS. 11A and 11B with increasing non-linear change in conductivity due to electroporation and increasing applied electric field there is an increase in the residual for both cases. The main message though is that using the shape factor (analytical) method the maximum residual is 11.3502 A and with the statistical (numerical) model the maximum is 1.55583 A. This analysis suggests that the shape factor method may be inadequate to predict the non-linear changes in current that occur during electroporation and for reliable predictions the statistical (numerical) method may be better.

In terms of the prediction of the volume treated a representative method is to map out the electric field 5 cm in the directions along the (x,0,0), (0,y,0), and (0,0,z) axes from the origin. In addition, the electric field can be extracted along a line that starts at the origin and ends at 3 cm along each of the axes. These plots contain the information for determining the distances at which a particular IRE threshold occurs. In embodiments, 1440 different parameter combinations were simulated that resulted in data sets of 28,692 (x-direction), 20,538 (y-direction), 27,306 (z-direction), and 25,116 (xyz-direction) for homogeneous conductivity. Even though these simulations only include dynamic conductivity changes due to electroporation, it is believed that an identical analysis for simulations that also include the changes in conductivity due to temperature could also be performed. In this manner, it would be possible to determine irreversible electroporation thresholds as a function of temperature and electroporation. Manipulating these large data sets is challenging but it provides all the necessary information to study the effect of electrode separation, electrode length, dynamic conductivity factor, and voltage-to-distance ratio for any position along the described paths. In order to be able to manipulate the data and extract the distance for different IRE thresholds, the function NonlinearModelFit (Mathematica) was used in order to come up with analytical expressions that would closely match the electric field. A different function was used for each of the directions studied in the positive directions along the Cartesian coordinate system. The Micheilis Menten function was used along the x-direction (R²=0.978978), the analytical solution to the Laplace equation along the y-direction (R²=0.993262), and the Logistic equation in the z-direction (R²=0.983204). Each of those functions was scaled by a 3rd order polynomial function that enabled the fit to incorporate the electrode separation and electrode exposure as well. Even though the described functions were used to fit the data from the numerical data, there might be other functions that are also appropriate and this will be explored further in order to use the most reliable fit. In FIGS. 12A-12C provided are representative contour plots of the electric field strength at 1.0 cm from the origin using an edge-to-edge voltage-to-distance ratio of 1500 V/cm assuming a z=1 which is the case for non-electroporated electrical conductivity. It is important to note that in this case the y and z data are starting from (0, 0, 0) and the x-data starts outside the external electrode-tissue boundary. One representative case is presented, but any of the 1440 parameters combinations that were disclosed in the conference proceeding could be plotted as well.

The following functions describe the electric field [V/cm] distributions along the x-axis (E_x), y-axis (E_y), and z-axis (E_z) as a function of voltage-to-distance (W), edge-to-edge separation between the electrodes (X), exposure length (Y), maximum conductivity to baseline conductivity (Z), and distance in the x-direction (xx), y-direction (yy), and z-direction (zz).

E_x(W,X,Y,Z,xx)=W*(a*Exp[−b·xx]+c)*(dX³+eX²+fX+gY³+hY²+iY+j)+k Micheilis Menten Equation (electric field in the x-direction)

The coefficients for the NonlinearModelFit are given below:

a=−0.447392, b=8.98279, c=−0.0156167, d=−0.0654974, e=0.468234, f=−6.17716, g=0.326307, h=−2.33953, I=5.90586, j=−4.83018, k −9.44083

Laplace Equation (Electric Field in the y-Direction)

$E_{y} (W, X, Y, Z, y y) = a + (X^{3} + X^{2} + b X + c Y^{3} + d Y^{2} + e Y + f) * (h + \frac{(g W X Z)}{2} * (\frac{1}{Log [\frac{X + 0.1}{0.05}]) *}) * Abs [\frac{1}{\cdot y y - \frac{X}{2} - 0.05} - \frac{1}{\cdot y y + \frac{X}{2} + 0.05}])$

The coefficients for the NonlinearModelFit are given below:

a=−56.6597, b=−42.9322, c=6.66389, d=−50.8391, e=141.263, f=138.934, g=0.00417123, h=0.184109

Logistic Equation (electric field in the z-direction)

$E_{z} (W, X, Y, Z, z z) = a + \frac{b W Z}{1 + c \cdot Exp [d \cdot (\frac{2 z z}{y} - e)]} \cdot (f X^{3} + g X^{2} + h X + i) \cdot (j Y^{3} + k Y^{2} + l Y + m)$

The coefficients for the NonlinearModelFit are given below:

a=49.0995, b=−0.00309563, c=1.39341, d=4.02546, e=1.24714, f=0.276404, g=−1.84076, h=4.93473, I=−9.13219, j=0.699588, k=−5.0242, l=12.8624, m=19.9113.

In order to visualize the predicted IRE shape the equation of an ellipsoid was used and the semi-axes were forced to intersect with the locations at which the IRE threshold wants to be examined. Therefore, the provided functions can be adjusted in real-time to display the IRE volume for any electric field threshold. This is important since different tissues have different IRE thresholds that depend on the temperature, dielectric properties of the tissue, the electrode configuration, and the pulse parameters used. Once again, even though the equation for an ellipsoid is used to represent the IRE volume, other functions may be evaluated that may also be appropriate to replicate the morphology of the zones of ablation being achieved experimentally such as the Cassini curve. A 1500 V/cm was used as the voltage-to-distance ratio, electrode exposure 2 cm, and electrode separation 1.5 cm to generate 3 different IRE zones using 1000 V/cm, 750 V/cm, and 500 V/cm as the IRE thresholds with z=1.

From the 3D plots representing the zones of ablation shown in FIGS. 13A-13C it can be seen that if the IRE threshold is reduced from 1000 V/cm to either 750 V/cm or 500 V/cm, the volume becomes larger. This is representative of how different tissues may have different thresholds and this code may provide the ability to simulate the fields in a broad/generic manner that can then be applied to any tissue. Incorporating the xyz-data that was extracted from the parametric study will help modify the “roundness” of the current depictions of the zone of IRE ablation in order to more realistically replicate the experimental results. However, to the best of the inventors' knowledge there is no such adaptable code currently available to provide a 3D IRE volume as a function of measured current, electrode length, electrode exposure, applied voltage-to-distance ratio, and customizable electric field threshold so it is believed that this will greatly help the medical community in planning and verifying the clinical treatments of patients being treated with the IRE technology.

Example 4
Specific Conductivity

Specific conductivity can be important in embodiments for treatment planning of irreversible electroporation (IRE). For many applications, especially when treating tumors in the brain, the volume (area) of IRE should be predicted to maximize the ablation of the tumorous tissue while minimizing the damage to surrounding healthy tissue. The specific electrical conductivity of tissue during an irreversible electroporation (IRE) procedure allows the physicians to: determine the current threshold; minimize the electric current dose; decrease the Joule heating; and reduce damage to surrounding healthy tissue. To measure the specific conductivity of tissue prior to an IRE procedure the physician typically performs one or more of the following: establishes the electrode geometry (shape factor); determines the physical dimensions of the tissue; applies a small excitation AC voltage signal (1 to 10 mV); measures the AC current response; calculates the specific conductivity (σ) using results from the prior steps. This procedure tends to not generate tissue damage (low amplitude AC signals) and will supply the physician (software) with the required information to optimize IRE treatment planning, especially in sensitive organs like the brain which is susceptible to high electrical currents and temperatures. Thus, the IRE procedure is well monitored and can also serve as a feedback system in between series of pulses and even after the treatment to evaluate the area of ablation.

Special Cases for electrode geometry

Nomenclature (units in brackets):

V_e=voltage on the hot electrode (the highest voltage), [V]

G=electroporation voltage gradient (required for electroporation), [V/m]

R₁=radius of electrode with highest voltage (inner radius), [m]

R₂=radius at which the outer electrodes are arranged (outer radius), [m]

i=total current, [A]

L=length of cylindrical electrode, [m]

A=area of plate electrode, [m²]

σ=electrical conductivity of tissue, [S/m]

ρ=density

c=heat capacity

Case 1

Electrical conduction between a two-cylinder (needle) arrangement of length L in an infinite medium (tissue). It is important to note that this formulation is most accurate when L>>R₁,R₂and L>>w. The electrical conductivity can be calculated from,

$σ = \frac{i \cdot S}{V_{e}}$

where the shape factor (S) corresponding to the electrode dimensions and configuration is given by,

$\frac{2 \cdot π \cdot L}{\cosh^{- 1} (\frac{4 \cdot w^{2} - {(2 \cdot R_{1})}^{2} - {(2 \cdot R_{2})}^{2}}{8 \cdot R_{1} \cdot R_{2}})}$

Case 2

Cylindrical arrangement in which the central electrode is a cylinder (needle) with radius R₁and the outer electrodes are arranged in a cylindrical shell with a shell radius of R₂(not the radius of the electrodes). The voltage on the central electrode is V_e. The voltage distribution in the tissue may be determined as a function of radius, r:

$V = V_{e} \frac{\ln \frac{r}{R_{2}}}{\ln \frac{R_{1}}{R_{2}}}$

The required voltage on the central electrode to achieve IRE:

$V_{e} = G R_{2} \ln \frac{R_{2}}{R_{1}}$

The required current on the central electrode:

$i = \frac{2 π L σ V_{e}}{\ln \frac{R_{2}}{R_{1}}}$

The specific conductivity (σ) of the tissue can be calculated since the voltage signal (V_e) and the current responses (i) are known.

Explanation of Electrical Concepts.

By using the bipolar electrode described previously in US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0030211A1, one can apply a small excitation AC voltage signal (for example from about 1 to 10 mV),

V(t)=V₀Sin(ωt)

where V(t) is the potential at time t, V₀is the amplitude of the excitation signal and ω is the frequency in radians/s. The reason for using a small excitation signal is to get a response that is pseudo-linear since in this manner the value for the impedance can be determined indicating the ability of a system (tissue) to resist the flow of electrical current. The measured AC current (response) that is generated by the excitation signal is described by

I(t)=I₀Sin(ωt+θ)

where I(t) is the response signal, I₀is the amplitude of the response (I₀≠V₀) and θ is the phase shift of the signal. The impedance (Z) of the system (tissue) is described by,

Z=(V(t))/(I(t))=(V₀Sin(ωt))/(I₀Sin(ωt+θ))=Z₀(Sin(ωt)/(Sin(ωt+θ))

It is important to note that the measurement of the response is at the same excitation frequency as the AC voltage signal to prevent interfering signals that could compromise the results. The magnitude of the impedance |Z₀| is the electrical resistance of the tissue. The electrical resistivity (Ωm) can be determined from the resistance and the physical dimensions of the tissue in addition to the electrode geometry (shape factor). The reciprocal of the electrical resistivity is the electrical conductivity (S/m). Therefore, after deriving the electrical resistivity from the methods described above, the conductivity may be determined.

As described in U.S. Patent Application No. 61/694,144 the analytical solution (Table 4) assumes that the length of the electrodes is much larger than the electrode radius or separation distance between the electrodes. Additionally, the analytical solution is not capable of capturing the non-linear electrical response of the tissue during electroporation procedures. The proposed statistical algorithm (Table 3) is preferably used in order to capture the response in treatments that are being conducted clinically and show how the analytical overestimates the baseline and maximum current that uses the experimental data.

TABLE 3

Determination of conductivity using the statistical model

and in vivo data from pre-pulse and IRE pulses in canine

kidney tissue using identical electrode configuration

that the experimental one described below.

Current
Voltage
Volt-2-Dist
Conductivity
Z =

[A]
[V]
[V/cm]
[S/m]
σ_max/σ_min

Pre-Pulse
0.258
48
53
0.365
—

IRE-Pulse
20.6
1758
1953
1.037
2.841

IRE-Pulse
23.7
1758
1953
1.212
3.320

IRE-Pulse
23.6
1758
1953
1.207
3.305

Avg. IRE
22.6
1758
1953
1.150
3.150

IRE-Pulse
10.4
1259
1399
0.727
1.990

IRE-Pulse
11.1
1257
1397
0.789
2.162

IRE-Pulse
11
1257
1397
0.781
2.138

Avg. IRE
10.8
1257
1397
0.763
2.090

Pre-Pulse
0.343
73.3
52
0.341
—

IRE-Pulse
23.6
2262
1616
1.007
2.952

IRE-Pulse
24.3
2262
1616
1.041
3.051

IRE-Pulse
25.4
2262
1616
1.094
3.207

Avg. IRE
24.5
2262
1616
1.050
3.080

TABLE 4

Determination of conductivity using the analytical model

and in vivo data from pre-pulse and IRE pulses in canine

kidney tissue using identical electrode configuration than

the experimental one described below. Assumption:

Length >> radius, Length >> width, 2 cylindrical

electrodes in an infinite medium.

Current
Voltage
Volt-2-Dist
Shape
Conductivity

[A]
[V]
[V/cm]
Factor [m]
[S/m]

Pre-Pulse
0.258
48
53
0.01050
0.512

IRE-Pulse
20.6
1758
1953
0.01050
1.116

IRE-Pulse
23.7
1758
1953
0.01050
1.284

IRE-Pulse
23.6
1758
1953
0.01050
1.279

Avg. IRE
22.6
1758
1953
0.01050
1.225

IRE-Pulse
10.4
1259
1399
0.01050
0.787

IRE-Pulse
11.1
1257
1397
0.01050
0.841

IRE-Pulse
11
1257
1397
0.01050
0.834

Avg. IRE
10.8
1257
1397
0.01050
0.819

Pre-Pulse
0.343
73.3
52
0.00924
0.506

IRE-Pulse
23.6
2262
1616
0.00924
1.129

IRE-Pulse
24.3
2262
1616
0.00924
1.163

IRE-Pulse
25.4
2262
1616
0.00924
1.215

Avg. IRE
24.5
2262
1616
0.00924
1.172

Example 5
In Vivo Experiments

1) Animals.

IRE ablations were performed in canine kidneys in a procedure approved by the local animal ethics committee. Male canines weighing approximately 30 kg were premedicated with acetylpromazine (0.1 mg/kg), atropine (0.05 mg/kg), and morphine (0.2 mg/kg) prior to general anesthesia induced with propofol (6 mg/kg, then 0.5 mg/kg/min) and maintained with inhaled isofluorane (1-2%). Anesthetic depth was monitored by bispectral index monitoring (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland) of EEG brain activity. After ensuring adequate anesthesia, a midline incision was made and mesenchymal tissue was maneuvered to access the kidney. Pancuronium was delivered intravenously to mitigate electrically mediated muscle contraction, with an initial dose of 0.2 mg/kg, and adjusted if contractions increased.

2) Experimental Procedure.

Two modified 18 gauge needle electrodes (1.0 mm diameter and 1.0 cm in exposure) were inserted as pairs into the superior, middle, or inferior lobe of the kidney, with lobes being randomly selected. A BTX ECM830 pulse generator (Harvard Apparatus, Cambridge, Mass.) was used to deliver an initial 100 μs pre-pulse of 50 V/cm voltage-to-distance ratio (center-to-center) between the electrodes to get an initial current able to be used to determine baseline conductivity. Electrical current was measured with a Tektronix TCP305 electromagnetic induction current probe connected to a TCPA300 amplifier (both Tektronix, Beaverton, Oreg.). A Protek DS0-2090 USB computer-interface oscilloscope provided current measurements on a laptop using the included DSO-2090 software (both GS Instruments, Incheon, Korea). A schematic of the experimental setup can be found in FIG. 14A. Following the pre-pulse, a series of 100 pulses, each 100 μs long, at a rate of 1 pulse per second was delivered, reversing polarity after 50 pulses. A five second pause was encountered after pulses 10 and 50 to save data. A schematic diagram showing dimension labeling conventions is shown in FIG. 14B. Representative current waveforms from a pre-pulse and experimental pulse can be found in FIGS. 14C and 14D, respectively. Electrode exposure lengths were set to 1 cm for all trials. The separation distance between electrodes and applied voltage may be found in Table 5. After completing pulse delivery, the electrodes were removed. Two additional ablations were performed in the remaining lobes before repeating the procedure on the contralateral kidney, resulting in a total of three ablations per kidney and six per canine.

TABLE 5

KIDNEY EXPERIMENT PROTOCOLS IN CANINE SUBJECTS

Voltage-

Separation,

Distance

Setup
cm
Voltage, V
Ratio, V/cm
n

1
1
1250
1250
4

2
1
1750
1750
4

3
1.5
2250
1500
6

3) Kidney Segmentation and 3D Reconstruction.

Numerical models provide an advantageous platform for predicting electroporation treatment effects by simulating electric field, electrical conductivity, and temperature distributions. By understanding the electric field distribution, one can apply an effective lethal electric field threshold for IRE, E_IRE, to predict ablation lesion dimensions under varying pulse protocols (electrode arrangements and applied voltages). However, in order to do so, these models should first be calibrated with experimental data. Here, the numerical simulation algorithm developed from porcine kidneys was expanded that accounts for conductivity changes using an asymmetrical sigmoid function (R. E. Neal, 2nd, et al., “Experimental characterization and numerical modeling of tissue electrical conductivity during pulsed electric fields for irreversible electroporation treatment planning,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng., vol. 59, pp. 1076-85. Epub 2012 Jan. 6, 2012 (“R. E. Neal, 2^nd, et al., 2012”)). The model is calibrated to the experimental lesions to determine an effective electric field threshold under the three experimental setups used. In addition, static and linear conductivity functions are also correlated to the lesion dimensions. The three functions are used to evaluate which numerical technique will result in better accuracy in matching lesion shapes and resulting current from actual IRE ablations in mammalian tissue, particularly for kidney.

The imaging-based computational model domains were constructed from a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of a kidney from a canine subject of similar size to those in the study. The scans were scaled by 1.21 times in all directions to better match the experimental kidney dimensions while maintaining the anatomical characteristics. Mimics 14.1 image analysis software (Materialise, Leuven, BG) was used to segment the kidney geometry from the surrounding tissues. The kidney was traced in each of the two-dimensional (2D) MRI axial slices, which were then integrated into a three-dimensional (3D) solid representation of the kidney volume which was refined and exported to 3-matic version 6.1 (Materialise, Leuven, BG) to generate a volumetric mesh compatible with Comsol Multiphysics finite element modeling software (Comsol Multiphysics, v.4.2a, Stockholm, Sweden).

Electrodes were simulated as paired cylinders, each 1 cm long and 1 mm in diameter, and separated by 1 or 1.5 cm to represent the two experimental conditions. The pairs were inserted into the 3D kidney mesh in two configurations, representing both experimental approaches that used either the superior/inferior (vertical) or middle (horizontal) lobe of the kidney, both with tips 1.5 cm deep. The finite element model simulated the electric field distribution in the kidney, which was used to determine cell death EIRE by correlating the electric field values with the average in vivo lesion height and width dimensions.

4) Electric Field Distribution and Lethal E_IREDetermination.

The electric field distribution is determined according to

−∇·(σ(|E|)∇ϕ)=0 (1)

where σ is the electrical conductivity of the tissue, E is the electric field in V/cm, and ϕ is the electrical potential. Tissue-electrode boundaries for the cathode and anode were defined as ϕ=V_oand ground, respectively. The remaining boundaries were treated as electrically insulating, dϕ/dn=0, since the kidneys were isolated from the surrounding mesenchymal tissue during the experimental procedures. The current density was integrated over a mid-plane parallel to both electrodes to determine simulated electric current.

The model was solved for the vertical and horizontal electrode configurations, each considering three electrical conductivity tissue responses. These responses included a homogeneous static conductivity (σ₀) as well as two that accounted for electroporation based conductivity changes in tissue that result from cell membrane permeabilization. The dynamic models are based on a relationship between a minimum baseline and a maximum conductivity. The static conductivity model was used to determine the baseline conductivity, σ₀, by matching simulated electrical current with the pre-pulse experimental data, where the field strength should be below that able to permeabilize any cells in the tissue. The maximum conductivity, σ_max, occurs when the number of cells electroporated in the tissue has saturated, and the cellular membranes no longer restrict the extent of interstitial electrolyte mobility. The statistical model discussed in (P. A. Garcia, et al., “Towards a predictive model of electroporation-based therapies using pre-pulse electrical measurements,” Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 2012, pp. 2575-8, 2012 (“P. A. Garcia, et al., 2012”)) was used to predict σ_maxfrom previously characterized tissue response to pre-pulse σ₀and electrical data.

The σ₀and σ_maxvalues provide the required parameters to define the electric field-dependent conductivity, σ(|E|), of renal tissue in vivo. One model assumed a linear relationship that grew between the minimum and maximum conductivities over a range from 200 to 2000 V/cm, σ_L(|E|), and the second used an asymmetrical sigmoid Gompertz curve, σ_S(|E|), derived from the work described in (R. E. Neal, 2nd, et al., 2012) using the equation:

σ_S(|E|)=σ₀+(σ_max−σ₀)·exp[−A·exp(−B·E)] (2)

where A and B are unitless coefficients that vary with pulse length, t(s). This function was fit using curve parameters for a 100 μs long pulse, where A=3.053 and B =0.00233 (R. E. Neal, 2^nd, et al., 2012)

The electric field distribution along a width and height projection based at the midpoint length of the electrodes was used to determine the electric field magnitude that matched experimental lesion dimensions. This was performed for all three conductivity scenarios in all three experimental protocol setups in order to determine which model best matched the IRE ablations, providing the optimum conductivity modeling technique for mammalian tissue.

5) Results: In Vivo Experiments.

Electrical Currents.

All animals survived the procedures without adverse event until euthanasia. Electrical pre-pulse currents were 0.258±0.036 A (mean±SD) for the 1 cm electrode separation trials and 0.343±0.050 A for the 1.5 cm separation trials. Electrical currents from the trials for pulses 1-10, 40-50, and 90-100 are reported in Table 6. Although currents are typically reported to increase with consecutive pulses, there is no statistically significant correlation between pulse number and measured current. Therefore, all numerical calibrations to match electrical current and determine σ_maxused the average current from all captured pulses for each experimental setup.

TABLE 6

EXPERIMENTAL ELECTRIC CURRENTS

TO CALIBRATE NUMERICAL MODELS

Separation,
Average
Pulse
Average Electric

Setup
cm
Delivered Voltage, V
Number
Current, A*

Pre 1
1
48
1750
0.258 (0.036)

Pre 2
1.5
73
1250
0.343 (0.050)

1
1
1258
1-10
10.4 (1.7)

40-50
11.1 (1.1)

90-100
11.0 (1.7)

2
2
1758
1-10
20.6 (3.2)

40-50
23.7 (5.1)

90-100
23.6 (3.8)

3
1.5
2262
1-10
23.6 (1.47)

40-50
24.3 (3.25)

90-100
25.4 (3.27)

*Currents given as “average (standard deviation)”

6) Determination of Dynamic Conductivity Function.

Pre-pulse electrical current was used to calculate the baseline conductivity, σ₀, used in the static numerical simulation. In addition, the baseline and maximum, σ_max, electrical conductivities required for generating the asymmetrical sigmoid and linear dynamic conductivity functions were calculated according to the procedure outlined in (P. A. Garcia, et al., 2012) and are provided in Table 7. The ratio between these conductivities was calculated and demonstrates an increase in conductivity between 2.09 and 3.15 times, consistent with values determined in the literature for other organs (N. Pavselj, et al., “The course of tissue permeabilization studied on a mathematical model of a subcutaneous tumor in small animals,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 52, pp. 1373-81, August 2005).

TABLE 7

BASELINE AND MAXIMUM ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITIES

Gap,
V/d Ratio,

Setup
cm
V/cm
σ₀
σ_max
σ_max/σ₀

1
1
1250
0.365
0.763
2.09

2
1
1750
0.365
1.150
3.15

3
1.5
1500
0.341
1.050
3.08

Example 6
How to Use the Ratio of Maximum Conductivity to Baseline Conductivity in Modifying the Electric Field Distribution and Thus the Cassini Oval Equation

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a promising new method for the focal ablation of undesirable tissue and tumors. The minimally invasive procedure involves placing electrodes into the region of interest and delivering a series of low energy electric pulses to induce irrecoverable structural changes in cell membranes, thus achieving tissue death. To achieve IRE, the electric field in the region of interest needs to be above a critical threshold, which is dependent on a variety of conditions such as the physical properties of the tissue, electrode geometry and pulse parameters. Additionally, the electric conductivity of the tissue changes as a result of the pulses, redistributing the electric field and thus the treatment area. The effect of a dynamic conductivity around the electrodes where the highest electric fields are generated was investigated in order to better predict the IRE treatment for clinical use.

The electric field distribution associated with the electric pulse is given by solving the governing Laplace equation, ∇·(σ∇φ)=0, where σ is the tissue electrical conductivity (baseline 0.2 S/m) and φ the electrical potential (3000 V). The dynamic changes in electrical conductivity due to electroporation were modeled with the flc2hs Heaviside function within the finite element modeling software used in the study (Comsol Multiphysics 3.5a, Stockholm, Sweden). The dynamic conductivity factor ranged between 2.0-7.0 times the baseline value in the regions exceeding 3000 V/cm. The total electrical current, volumes, and lesion shapes from the IRE treatment were evaluated.

FIGS. 15A and 15B display the electric field distributions for the non-electroporated (baseline conductivity) and electroporated (maximum/baseline conductivity) maps, respectively. The electric field from using the baseline conductivity resulted in a “peanut” shape distribution (FIG. 15A). By incorporating the conductivity ratio between σ_max/σ₀, there is a redistribution of the electric field and thus the volumes, currents and lesion shapes are modified as well. The electric field distribution for a 7.0× factor (FIG. 15B), shows a more gradual dissipation of the electric field and a rounder predicted IRE lesion.

A method to predict IRE lesions and incorporate the dynamic changes in conductivity due to electroporation around the electrodes is presented in this example. This procedure provides additional tools to better approximate the electric field distributions in tissue and thus help to generate more reliable IRE treatment planning for clinical use using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models.

Specifically in order to adapt the Cassini Oval to match experimental lesions or electric field distributions the following procedure should be used:

In IRE treatments, the electric field distribution is the primary factor for dictating defect formation and the resulting volume of treated tissue (J. F. Edd and R. V. Davalos, “Mathematical modeling of irreversible electroporation for treatment planning,” Technol Cancer Res Treat, vol. 6, pp. 275-286, 2007; D. Sel, et al., “Sequential finite element model of tissue electropermeabilization,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 52, pp. 816-27, May 2005; S. Mahnic-Kalamiza, et al., “Educational application for visualization and analysis of electric field strength in multiple electrode electroporation,” BMC Med Educ, vol. 12, p. 102, 2012 (“S. Mahnic-Kalamiza, et al., 2012”)). The electric field is influenced by both the geometry and positioning of the electrodes as well as the dielectric tissue properties. Additionally, altered membrane permeability due to electroporation influences the tissue conductivity in a non-linear manner. Therefore numerical techniques are preferably used to account for different electrode configurations and incorporate tissue-specific functions relating the electrical conductivity to the electric field distribution (i.e. extent of electroporation). The inventors are currently using imaging-based computational models for IRE treatment planning that use the physical properties of the tissue and patient-specific 3D anatomical reconstructions to generate electric field distributions (P. A. Garcia, et al., “Non-thermal irreversible electroporation (N-TIRE) and adjuvant fractionated radiotherapeutic multimodal therapy for intracranial malignant glioma in a canine patient,” Technol Cancer Res Treat, vol. 10, pp. 73-83, 2011 (“P. A. Garcia, et al, 2011”)).

Oftentimes in clinical practice, there is need to rapidly visualize the estimated zone of ablation without relying on complex and time consuming numerical simulations. As an alternative, analytical solutions are powerful techniques that provide valuable insight and offer the ability to rapidly visualize electric field distributions (S. Mahnic-Kalamiza, et al., 2012). However, these analytical solutions assume infinitely long electrodes which are not the case in clinical practice and do not incorporate the non-linear changes in tissue conductivity due to electroporation. Therefore, there is a need for simple, quick, and accurate methods to provide physicians with predicted IRE zones of ablation during surgery when one of the pulse parameters needs to be adjusted. To this end, the inventors have adapted the Cassini curve in an effort to provide researchers and physicians with a graphical representation of IRE zones of ablation, for example, in in vivo porcine liver. The goal of this work is to provide a correlation between experimentally produced zones of ablations in in vivo porcine liver tissue with the corresponding IRE pulse parameters and electrode configuration. These Cassini curves are calibrated to experimental IRE ablations, and incorporate the dynamic changes in tissue conductivity, a limitation of the analytical approach.

The Cassini oval is a plane curve that derives its set of values based on the distance of any given point, a, from the fixed location of two foci, q₁and q₂, located at (x₁, y₁) and (x₂, y₂). The equation is similar to that of an ellipse, except that it is based on the product of distances from the foci, rather than the sum. This makes the equation for such an oval

└(x₁−a)²+(y₁−a)²┘·└(x₂−a)²+(y₂−a)²┘=b⁴ (3)

where b⁴is a scaling factor to determine the value at any given point. For incorporation of this equation into shapes that mimic the electric field distribution, it is assumed that the two foci were equidistantly located on the x-axis at (±x,0). The flexibility of the Cassini curve is crucial since it allows for fitting a wide range of shapes by adjusting the ‘a’ and/or ‘b’ parameters from Equation 3 simultaneously and fitting them to the experimental lesion dimensions or the locations at which a particular electric field value results from the computational simulations. The new approach in this analysis is that it is not assumed that the parameter ‘a’ is related to the separation distance between the electrodes used in IRE treatments for example but will be a second parameter to match the width/depth of any distribution thus allowing for more flexibility between the shapes achieved with the Cassini Oval as can be seen in FIGS. 16A and 16B.

The in vivo experimental data in porcine liver was provided from published studies performed at the Applied Radiology Laboratory of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center (P. A. Garcia, et al., 2011). All experiments were performed with Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval from the Hebrew University Medical Center. The treatments were performed with a two-needle electrode configuration, 1.5 cm center-to-center separation, 2.0 cm electrode exposure, and an applied voltage of 2250 V. In this paper we only evaluate the effect of pulse number and pulse duration on the resulting ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters required to fit the IRE zones of ablation with the Cassini curve. The NonlinearModelFit function in Wolfram Mathematica 9 was used to determine the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters (average±standard deviation) for each pulse parameter resulting in three curves for each condition. This same technique can be used to fit the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters to match the electric field shape at any particular electric field value as well thus providing an avenue to capture the shape for any IRE lesion independent of the tissue or patient.

The NonlinearModelFit results for the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters to generate the Cassini curves are provided in FIG. 17. The ‘a’ parameter ranged from 0.75-1.04 and the ‘b’ from 1.06-1.35 for the average IRE zones of ablation in the in vivo porcine liver. From these data it can be seen that each pulse parameter used results in a unique ‘a’ and ‘b’ combination except for the twenty 100-μs pulses and ninety 20-μs pulses which overlap since they had identical IRE ablations. Therefore, consideration should be given to pulse length and total number of pulses when planning treatments to ensure maximum accuracy when using Cassini curves to rapidly predict treatment zones.

FIG. 18 provides a representation of the average IRE zone of ablation and also includes the experimentally achieved standard deviations. This Cassini curve is the most clinically relevant as ninety 100-μs pulses is the recommended setting by the manufacturer that is currently being used by physicians to treat several types of cancer. The Cassini curves in FIG. 18 were generated using two single needle electrodes with a=0.821±0.062 and b=1.256±0.079 that corresponded to IRE ablations that were 3.0±0.2 cm in width and 1.9±0.1 cm in depth (P. A. Garcia, et al., 2011). The results suggest that the Cassini curve is a viable method to represent experimentally achieved IRE zones of ablation. These curves can be used to provide physicians with simple, quick, and accurate prediction of IRE treatments. The parameters generated in this study were achieved from porcine liver ablations data. The parameters for other tissues and/or tumors can be determined in a similar manner. Cassini curve parameters should be re-calibrated if the pulse parameters or electrode configuration (i.e. separation or exposure) deviate from the typical protocols in Ben-David et al. Additionally, there is a need to calibrate these Cassini curves to electric and temperature distributions in order to take advantage of the relatively simple curves in representing simulated solutions that account for other pulse parameters and electrode configuration including different electrode separations, diameter, exposure, and voltages. A method to represent IRE zones of ablation in a computationally efficient manner and based on experimental data is thus presented. Such methods can be used to predict IRE ablation in liver in order to provide physicians with an immediate tool for treatment planning.

FIG. 19 is a representation of the 3D Electric Field [V/cm] Distribution in Non-Electroporated (Baseline) Tissue with 1.5-cm Single Needle Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and 3000 V applied.

FIGS. 20A-D are representations of the Electric Field [V/cm] Distributions from the 3D Non-Electroporated (Baseline) Models with 1.5-cm Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and 3000 V (cross-sections), wherein FIG. 20A is a representation of the x-y plane mid-electrode length, FIG. 20B is a representation of the x-z plane mid-electrode diameter, FIG. 20C is a representation of the y-z plane mid electrode diameter, and FIG. 20D is a representation of the y-z plane between electrodes.

FIG. 21 is a representation of the 3D Electric Field [V/cm] Distribution in Electroporated Tissue with 1.5-cm Single Needle Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and 3000 V applied assuming σ_max/σ₀=3.6.

FIGS. 22A-22D are representations of the Electric Field [V/cm] Distributions from the 3D Electroporated Models with 1.5-cm Electrodes at a Separation of 2.0 cm and 3000 V (cross-sections) assuming a σ_max/σ₀=3.6, wherein FIG. 22A is a representation of the x-y plane mid-electrode length, FIG. 22B is a representation of the x-z plane mid-electrode diameter, FIG. 22C is a representation of the y-z plane mid electrode diameter, and FIG. 22D is a representation of the y-z plane between electrodes.

Example 7
The Cassini Oval Equation

In mathematics, a Cassini oval is a set (or locus) of points in the plane such that each point p on the oval bears a special relation to two other, fixed points q₁and q₂: the product of the distance from p to q₁and the distance from p to q₂is constant. That is, if the function dist(x,y) is defined to be the distance from a point x to a point y, then all points p on a Cassini oval satisfy the equation:

dist(q₁,p)×dist(q₂,p)=b² (2)

where b is a constant.

Nevertheless, in embodiments the ‘b’ parameter can be modified to manipulate the shape of the Cassini curve and illustrate the desired electric field distribution. Therefore, the ‘b’ is a variable parameter that is determined based on the specific location (distance) of a particular electric field threshold to be displayed.

The points q₁and q₂are called the foci of the oval.

Suppose q₁is the point (a,0), and q₂is the point (−a,0). Then the points on the curve satisfy the equation:

((x−a)²+y²)((x+a)²+y²)=b⁴ (3)

The equivalent polar equation is:

r⁴−2a²r²cos 2θ=b⁴−a⁴ (4)

The shape of the oval depends on the ratio b/a. When b/a is greater than 1, the locus is a single, connected loop. When b/a is less than 1, the locus comprises two disconnected loops. When b/a is equal to 1, the locus is a lemniscate of Bernoulli.

The Cassini equation provides a very efficient algorithm for plotting the boundary line of the treatment zone that was created between two probes on grid 200. By taking pairs of probes for each firing sequence, the first probe is set as qi being the point (a,0) and the second probe is set as q₂being the point (−a,0). This original Cassini oval formulation was revised by modifying the assumption of the ‘a’ parameter being related to the position of the electrodes. In the revised formulation the ‘a’ is a variable parameter that is adjusted depending on the width and length of the Cassini oval in order to intercept the zone of ablation in the x- and y-directions.

In summary, the ‘a’ and ‘b’ variable parameters should be determined in order to have the ability to generate a Cassini curve that could fit the shape of any electric field isocontour. Specifically from the electric field simulations or experimental irreversible electroporation zones of ablation the user should determine the distance along the x-axis and y-axis that the Cassini curve should intersect.

For example in the case of a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulation using two 1-mm in diameter electrodes, separated by a center-to-center distance of 2.0 cm, 1.5 cm in exposure, and an applied voltage of 3000 V to one electrode and ground to the other electrode the distances from the point in between the electrodes to a specific electric field contour is given below (Table 8 for the baseline (non-electroporated) and σ_max/σ₀=3.6 (electroporated) models.

TABLE 8

E-field
Baseline
Baseline
σ_max/σ₀= 3.6
σ_max/σ₀= 3.6

[V/cm]
(p_1x, 0) [cm]
(0, p_2y) [cm]
(p_3x, 0) [cm]
(0, p_4y) [cm]

300
1.97
0.92
2.38
1.39

400
1.81
0.69
2.17
1.18

500
1.70
0.49
1.99
1.01

Using the 500 V/cm electric field isocontour as an example it can be determined that the Cassini oval using the baseline model will intersect the points (1.70,0) and (0,0.49) and the model using σ_max/σ₀=3.6 will intersect the point (1.99,0) and (0,1.01). Using the two points that will be intersected by the Cassini oval of each specific model type (non-electroporated vs. electroporated) allows for determination of the ‘a’ and ‘b’ variable parameter and still satisfy the mathematical condition outlined above in the first paragraph of this section by way of least square fits such as the NonlinearModelFit function in Mathematica or via interpolation tables as the one presented below.

The interpolation method involves assuming values for the ‘a’ parameter from 0.00 cm to 3.00 cm in steps of 0.01 cm and calculating the ‘b’ parameter using the specific points from the previous paragraph. The distance and steps were arbitrarily chosen and can vary depending on the specific Cassini oval that is being developed. In the case of Table 9 the point p1x=(1.70 cm, 0 cm) and the point p2y=(0 cm, 0.49 cm) and the corresponding distances to either q1 (−a,0) or q2 (a,0) are calculated.

TABLE 9

d(q1,
d(q2,

d(q1,
d(q2,

p1x) =
p1x) =

p2y) =
p2y) =

d1*d2/

‘a’
d1
d2
d1*d2
d3
d4
d3*d4
d3*d4

1.04
0.66
2.74
1.808
1.150
1.150
1.322
1.37

1.05
0.65
2.75
1.788
1.159
1.159
1.343
1.33

1.06
0.64
2.76
1.766
1.168
1.168
1.364
1.30

1.07
0.63
2.77
1.745
1.177
1.177
1.385
1.26

1.08
0.62
2.78
1.724
1.186
1.186
1.407
1.23

1.09
0.61
2.79
1.702
1.195
1.195
1.428
1.19

1.1
0.60
2.80
1.680
1.204
1.204
1.450
1.16

1.11
0.59
2.81
1.658
1.213
1.213
1.472
1.13

1.12
0.58
2.82
1.636
1.222
1.222
1.495
1.09

1.13
0.57
2.83
1.613
1.232
1.232
1.517
1.06

1.14
0.56
2.84
1.590
1.241
1.241
1.540
1.03

1.15
0.55
2.85
1.568
1.250
1.250
1.563
1.00

1.16
0.54
2.86
1.544
1.259
1.259
1.586
0.97

1.17
0.53
2.87
1.521
1.268
1.268
1.609
0.95

1.18
0.52
2.88
1.498
1.278
1.278
1.633
0.92

1.19
0.51
2.89
1.474
1.287
1.287
1.656
0.89

1.2
0.50
2.90
1.450
1.296
1.296
1.680
0.86

1.21
0.49
2.91
1.426
1.305
1.305
1.704
0.84

1.22
0.48
2.92
1.402
1.315
1.315
1.729
0.81

1.23
0.47
2.93
1.377
1.324
1.324
1.753
0.79

1.24
0.46
2.94
1.352
1.333
1.333
1.778
0.76

In the baseline case analyzed above when the variable parameter ‘a’ was 1.15 cm the calculated b²were 1.568 and 1.563 for the d1*d2 and d3*d4, respectively. The last column calculates the ratio of both b²values in order to determine the location at which they are the same (or closest) which happens when (d1*d2)/(d3*d4)=1.00.

Once it is determined that ‘a’=1.15 cm provides the closest ratio to one, the average of the d1*d2 (1.568) and d3*d4 (1.563) quantities is calculated and used to determine the corresponding ‘b’ parameter by taking the square root as shown in the equation below.

$\begin{matrix} b = \sqrt{\frac{(d 1 * d 2) + (d 3 * d 4)}{2}} = \sqrt{\frac{1.568 + 1.563}{2}} = \sqrt{1.5655} = 1.2512 & (5) \end{matrix}$

Once the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters are determined then any plotting software can be used to illustrate the Cassini curve in Cartesian coordinates using the modified equation

y=±√{square root over (−a²−x²±√{square root over (b⁴+4a²x²)})} (6)

The steps outlined in the previous paragraphs just above can also be used to determine the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters using the same methodology and with points p3x=(1.99 cm, 0 cm) and p4y=(0 cm, 1.01 cm) and results in ‘a’=1.21 cm and ‘b’=1.578 cm as the Cassini parameters for the electroporated model when σ_max/σ₀=3.6.

TABLE 10

d(q1,
d(q2,

d(q1,
d(q2,

p3x) =
p3x) =

p4y) =
p4y) =

d5*d6/

‘a’
d5
d6
d5*d6
d7
d8
d7*d8
d7*d8

1.1
0.89
3.09
2.750
1.493
1.493
2.230
1.23

1.11
0.88
3.10
2.728
1.501
1.501
2.252
1.21

1.12
0.87
3.11
2.706
1.508
1.508
2.275
1.19

1.13
0.86
3.12
2.683
1.516
1.516
2.297
1.17

1.14
0.85
3.13
2.661
1.523
1.523
2.320
1.15

1.15
0.84
3.14
2.638
1.531
1.531
2.343
1.13

1.16
0.83
3.15
2.615
1.538
1.538
2.366
1.11

1.17
0.82
3.16
2.591
1.546
1.546
2.389
1.08

1.18
0.81
3.17
2.568
1.553
1.553
2.413
1.06

1.19
0.80
3.18
2.544
1.561
1.561
2.436
1.04

1.2
0.79
3.19
2.520
1.568
1.568
2.460
1.02

1.21
0.78
3.20
2.496
1.576
1.576
2.484
1.00

1.22
0.77
3.21
2.472
1.584
1.584
2.509
0.99

1.23
0.76
3.22
2.447
1.592
1.592
2.533
0.97

1.24
0.75
3.23
2.423
1.599
1.599
2.558
0.95

1.25
0.74
3.24
2.398
1.607
1.607
2.583
0.93

1.26
0.73
3.25
2.373
1.615
1.615
2.608
0.91

1.27
0.72
3.26
2.347
1.623
1.623
2.633
0.89

1.28
0.71
3.27
2.322
1.630
1.630
2.659
0.87

1.29
0.70
3.28
2.296
1.638
1.638
2.684
0.86

1.3
0.69
3.29
2.270
1.646
1.646
2.710
0.84

In FIG. 23, it can be seen that with the implementation of the pre-pulse concept to determine the ratio of maximum conductivity to baseline conductivity one can derive a Cassini curve representing zones of ablation. In this case the 500 V/cm isocontour was specified but this technique could be used for any other isocontour that perhaps could represent the lethal IRE threshold for any other tissue/tumor type.

The polar equation for the Cassini curve could also be used because since it provides an alternate method for computation. The current Cartesian coordinate algorithm can work equally as well by using the polar equation of the Cassini curve. By solving for r²from eq. (4) above, the following polar equation was developed:

r²=a²cos(2*theta)+/−sqrt(b⁴−a⁴sin²(2*theta)) (5)

and the ‘a’ and ‘b’ parameters should be determined as previously described in this application.

Example 8
Mapping of Electric Field and Thermal Contours Using a Simplified Data Cross-Referencing Approach

This method can be used to identify the volume of tissue which will be elevated above a specific temperature (e.g. 45° C.) for specific treatment parameters. This contour can then be correlated with electric field intensity. This data in turn can be used to fit a contour using the Cassini oval software in the NANOKNIFE® System.

Methods: A mathematical model was built with COMSOL Multiphysics (Version 4.2a, Comsol Inc., Burlington, Mass., USA) to estimate the temperature rise within tissue due to Joule heating effects. The electric field distribution within the simulation domain was solved using the Joule Heating module, as described by the Laplace Equation:

∇²ϕ=0

where ϕ is the electric potential, this equation is solved with boundary conditions:

{right arrow over (n)}·{right arrow over (J)}=0 at the boundaries

ϕ=V_inat the boundary of the first electrode

ϕ=0 at the boundary of the second electrode

wherein {right arrow over (n)} is the normal vector to the surface, {right arrow over (J)} is the electrical current and V_inis the electrical potential applied. Heat transfer in the solid domain was calculated as:

$ρ C_{p} \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot (k \nabla T) + Q_{jh} [\frac{W}{m^{3}}]$

where ρ is the density, C_pis the heat capacity, k is the thermal conductivity, and Q_jhare the resistive losses

$Q_{jh} = J \cdot E [\frac{W}{m^{3}}]$

where J is the induced current density

$J = σ E [\frac{A}{m^{2}}]$

and σ is the tissue conductivity and E is the electric field

$E = - \nabla ϕ [\frac{V}{m}]$

To account for the pulsed nature of the applied electric field, the Joule heating term in COMSOL was adjusted by adding in a duty cycle term equal to 100×10⁻⁶, the pulse duration (100 μs) (See P. A. Garcia, et al., “A Parametric Study Delineating Irreversible Electroporation from Thermal Damage Based on a Minimally Invasive Intracranial Procedure,” Biomed Eng Online, vol. 10, p. 34, Apr. 30, 2011).

In the Joule Heating Model equation view, the equation for resistive losses was modified to:

jh·Qrh=((jh·Jix+jh·Jex)*duty_cycle*jh·Ex(jh·Jiy+jh·Jey)*duty_cycle*jh·Ey+(jh·Jiz+jh·Jez)*duty_cycle*jh·Ez)*(t<=90)+0*(t>90)

The resulting behavior was to calculate Joule heating only for the first 90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) of the simulation, after which, heat was allowed to dissipate within the tissue domain without additional heating. The parameters used in the simulations are provided in Table 11 below.

TABLE 11

Parameters used in COMSOL finite element model

Parameter
Value
Unit
Description

r_e
0.0005
[m]
electrode radius

l_e
0.15
[m]
electrode length

l_t
0.15
[m]
tissue radius

h_t
0.1
[m]
tissue thickness

gap
0.015
[m]
center-to-center spacing

epsi_e
0
—
electrode permittivity

epsi_i
0
—
insulation permittivity

epsi_t
0
—
tissue permittivity

sigma_e
2.22E+06
[S/m]
electrode conductivity

sigma_i
6.66E−16
[S/m]
insulation conductivity

sigma_t
0.2
[S/m]
tissue conductivity

rho
1080
[kg/m3]
tissue density

Cp
3890
[J/(kg * K)]
tissue heat capacity

k
0.547
[W(m * K)]
tissue thermal conductivity

duty_cycle
1.00E−04
—
pulse duty cycle

Results: The COMSOL model was used to solve for temperature distributions at times between 0 and 900 seconds (10 second increment 0-100s, 100 second increment 100-900 seconds). Electric Field and Temperature distributions were exported along lines on the x-(width) and y-axis (depth) with 100 micrometer spacing between data points. These values were imported into Excel and used as the basis for the Cassini oval calculations. FIGS. 24A-D shows the temperature distributions determined in COMSOL at 90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) for 3000 V treatments with 1.0 cm, 1.5 cm, 2.0 cm, and 2.5 cm electrode spacing and an electrode exposure of 1.5 cm. Contours on this figure show an approximate electric field which corresponds to tissue temperatures greater than 45° C. Simulations of each parameter required approximately 30 minutes to complete for a total computational duration of 15 hours.

FIGS. 25A-D shows the Cassini oval approximations for the temperature and electric field distributions based on the finite element simulation results. Iso-contour lines correspond to the tissue with temperature elevated above 45° C. and electric field above 500 V/cm, at the end of a 90 second IRE treatment (Ninety pulses of 100 μs).

The Cassini oval spreadsheet has been programmed so that the user can plot contour lines for specified voltages (500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 V), electrode separations (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 cm), Simulation times (0-900 seconds), Temperatures (37-Tmax ° C.), and electric field intensities (0-infinity V/cm). FIGS. 26A-D shows the temperature distributions for a 3000 V, 2.5 cm spacing treatment at 10, 40, 90, and 200 seconds. The simulation accounts for Joule heating up to 90 seconds. After 90 seconds, Joule heating is no longer calculated and the temperature dissipates over time since the ninety-pulse delivery is completed.

The Cassini oval approximation can also be used to investigate the contours of any temperature. FIG. 27A-D shows the volumes of tissue that have been heated by at least 0.2, 3.0, 8.0, and 13.0° C. At 3000V, 1.5 cm exposure, and 2.5 cm electrode spacing at a time=90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each), only a very small volume of tissue outside the ablation zone (500 V/cm) experiences any temperature increase.

The Cassini oval approximation tool provides a rapid method for determining the temperature distribution expected for a given set of treatment parameters (FIGS. 28 and 29). Voltage, Electrode Spacing (Gap), Time, Temperature, and Electric Field can be selected by moving the slider or editing values in the green boxes. In embodiments, baseline conductivity of the target treatment area, and/or a conductivity for a specific tissue type, and/or a change in conductivity for the target treatment area can also, and/or alternatively, be selected. Voltage is selectable in 500 V discrete steps between 500 and 3000 V. Electrode Spacing (Gap) is selectable in 5.0 mm discrete steps between 5.0 mm and 25 mm. Time is selectable in 10 second discrete steps between 0 and 100 seconds and 100 second discrete steps between 100 and 900 seconds. The temperature contour line is selectable for any value between 37° C. and T_max, where T_maxis the maximum temperature in the tissue at a given treatment time. Additionally, the electric field distribution within the tissue can be set for any value.

Additional examples of usage of the Cassini oval approximation tool are shown in the following figures. FIGS. 30A-D show temperature contour lines for 40° C. (FIG. 30A), 45° C. (FIG. 30B), 50° C. (FIG. 30C), and 55° C. (FIG. 30D) for a 90 second IRE treatment (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) with a voltage of 3000 V and electrode spacing of 10 mm. An electric field contour line of 500 V/cm is shown for comparison. As can be seen, the figures show a temperature gradient that expectedly increases from the 500 V/cm contour line toward the electrodes.

FIGS. 31A-D show contour lines representing a 40° C. temperature and a 500 V/cm electric field for a 90 second IRE treatment (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) and electrode spacing of 10 mm at different voltages (3000V (FIG. 31A), 2000V (FIG. 31B), 1500V (FIG. 31C), and 1000V (FIG. 31D)). The figures show that the size of the electric field and heated area decreases in proportion to the decrease in voltage.

FIGS. 32A-D show electric field contour lines for 500 V/cm (FIG. 32A), 1000 V/cm (FIG. 32B), 1500 V/cm (FIG. 32C), and 2000 V/cm (FIG. 32D) for a 90 second IRE treatment (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) with a voltage of 3000 V and electrode spacing of 10 mm. As can be seen, the figures show an electric field gradient that expectedly increases from the 40° C. contour line toward the electrodes.

FIGS. 33A-D show contour lines representing a 40° C. temperature and a 500 V/cm electric field for a 90 second IRE treatment (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) and voltage of 3000V at different electrode spacings (5 mm (FIG. 33A), 10 mm (FIG. 33B), 15 mm (FIG. 33C), 20 mm FIG. 33D)). As can be seen, increasing the electrode distance up to 15 mm widens the electric field and temperature contour. At an electrode distance of 20 mm, the electric field contour line widens and narrows, but the area heated to at least 40° C. is limited to a radius around each electrode.

FIGS. 34A-D show contour lines representing a 40° C. temperature and a 500 V/cm electric field for an IRE treatment of 3000V and an electrode spacing of 10 mm at different durations of treatment (90 seconds (Ninety pulses of 100 μs each) (FIG. 34A), 60 seconds (Sixty pulses of 100 μs each) (FIG. 34B), 30 seconds (Thirty pulses of 100 μs each) (FIG. 34C), 10 seconds (Ten pulses of 100 μs each) (FIG. 34D)). The graphs show that decreasing the durations of treatment reduces the area heated at least 40° C., but not the area of the electric field.

Model Limitations: This model was designed to give a rapid approximation for the temperature distribution within a volume of tissue without the need for complex finite element simulations. The data used to fit the Cassini oval curves uses values calculated assuming a constant conductivity of 0.2 S/m. This represents an approximate conductivity of human tissue, though conductivities of tissue vary between patients, tissue types, locations, and pathologies. Changing conductivity due to temperature increases or electroporation effects were not included. FIG. 35 shows the COMSOL three-dimensional finite element domain mesh used to calculate the electric field and temperature information to create the Cassini Oval values and curves.

The effects of blood flow and perfusion through the tissue, metabolic heat generation, or diffusion of heat at the tissue domain boundaries were not considered. It is anticipated that these effects will result in lower temperatures. Therefore, the visualization tool provides a conservative (worst case scenario) estimate as to the zones exposed to critical temperatures. The effects of changing conductivity and conductivities other than 0.2 S/m were not considered. Elevated conductivities are anticipated to result in higher temperatures within the tissue. Blood flow, metabolic heat generation, tissue conductivity, and ratios of changing conductivity are tissue type specific and will require the inclusion of in-vivo derived data.

Conclusions: In this Example, a real time visualization package plots the isocontour lines for an arbitrary temperature and electric field based on applied voltage, electrode spacing, and time. This data can be used to build intuition and instruct clinicians on reasonable expectations of temperature increases to prevent damage to critical structures of organs in the proximity of the treatment.

Example 9
Visualization of Electric Field Distributions Using Different Configurations of Bipolar Probes

FIGS. 36A-36C show a representation of a visualization tool providing the 650 V/cm electric field distributions using different configurations of bipolar probes and includes dynamic change (3.6×) in electrical conductivity from the non-electroporated baseline for runs 7, 8, and 9 of the visualization. FIG. 36D is a table showing parameters of each run including electrode length, separation distance (insulation), and applied voltage. FIG. 36E is a table showing lesion dimensions for runs 7, 8, and 9. The results show that as the length of the bipolar electrode increases, the size of the zone of ablation increases.

Example 10
Determining the IRE Threshold for Different Tissues According to Conductivity

In this Example, as shown in the following figures, the “Goldberg” data (red-dashed line), is from pre-clinical data for a particular treatment (2700V, 90 pulses, 100 μs energized per pulse). By adjusting one or more treatment parameters, a user can determine the electric field threshold for these types of tissues (black-solid line).

An important aspect of this model is that the tissue conductivity is allowed to change as a function of electric field to simulate what happens when the tissue becomes irreversibly electroporated. This function is ‘sigmoidal’ or ‘S’ shaped and increases from a baseline (non-electroporated) to a conductivity multiplier (electroporated). This transition happens at a specific electric field intensity.

In FIG. 37, the conductivity changes from 0.1 to 0.35 at an electric field centered at 500 V/cm. A user can change/shift all of the values in this curve to fit the experimental data. FIG. 38A is a contour plot comparing the “Goldberg” data (red dashed line) with a calculated threshold (solid black line) based on the parameters shown in FIG. 38C, explained below. FIG. 38B is a contour plot comparing the conductivity (blue dotted line) with a calculated threshold (solid black line) based on the parameters shown in FIG. 38C.

IRE Threshold [V/cm]: This parameter is the electric field at which the change in conductivity occurs for the sigmoidal curve. By changing this value, the sigmoidal curve shifts to the left or right. A value of 500 V/cm has been found to fit the data best.

Transition zone: This is the ‘width’ of the transition zone. By changing this value, the rate at which the conductivity increase changes. In FIG. 37, this value is set to 0.49, the widest transition possible. It has been found that a transition of 0.2 matches the experimental data best.

Sigma: This is the baseline conductivity before treatment. It has been found that a value of 0.067 (or 0.1) works well.

Conductivity Multiplier: This is how much the conductivity increases by when the tissue has been irreversibly electroporated. A 3.6× increase has been found experimentally for liver and fits the data well.

E-Field: This is the parameter that is adjusted to find the in-vivo irreversible electroporation threshold. With the values set for the other parameters above, it has been found that IRE should occur at a threshold of 580 V/cm to match the lesions found in-vivo.

The following figures show how modifying the conductivity of the tissue changes the calculated zone of ablation. FIGS. 39A-39F were performed according to the parameters in FIG. 38C, except the conductivity of the tissue was modified. FIGS. 39A-39C show the “Goldberg” data and calculated threshold and FIGS. 39D-39F show the conductivity and calculated threshold for conductivity multipliers of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. As can be seen, the calculated ablation zone increases in comparison to the Goldberg preclinical data as conductivity increases.

FIGS. 40A-40F were performed for an IRE Threshold of 600 V/cm, a transition zone of 0.4, a Voltage of 700 V, an E-Field of 700 V/cm, and a Sigma (electrical conductivity) of 0.20 S/m. FIGS. 40A-40C show the “Goldberg” data and calculated threshold and FIGS. 40D-40F show the conductivity and calculated threshold for conductivity multipliers of 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

FIGS. 41A-41F were performed for an IRE Threshold of 1000 V/cm, a transition zone of 0.2, a Voltage of 2700 V, an E-Field of 700 V/cm, and a Sigma (electrical conductivity) of 0.20 S/m. FIGS. 41A-41C show the “Goldberg” data and calculated threshold and FIGS. 41D-41F show the conductivity and calculated threshold for conductivity multipliers of 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

As can be seen, the calculated ablation zone increases in comparison to the Goldberg preclinical data as the conductivity multiplier increases.

Example 11
Correlating Experimental and Numerical IRE Lesions Using the Bipolar Probe

Purpose: To establish a function that correlates experimentally produced zones of ablations in in vivo porcine tissue with the corresponding IRE pulse parameters (duration, number, strength) and single needle electrode configuration.

A mathematical function was developed that captures the IRE response in liver tissue as a function of applied voltage, pulse number, and pulse duration for the bipolar electrode configuration. It is important to note that the inventors used a rate equation that was fit to the 1.5 cm×2.9 cm IRE zone of ablation but this has not been validated experimentally (See Golberg, A. and B. Rubinsky, A statistical model for multidimensional irreversible electroporation cell death in tissue. Biomed Eng Online, 2010. 9(1): p. 13). The results below provide insight as to the effect of different pulse parameters and electrode/insulation dimensions in the resulting zone of IRE ablation in order to optimize the bipolar probe electrode for clinical use. In order to perform a computationally efficient study, the models were constructed in a 2-D axis-symmetric platform which generates results that are representative of the 3-D space.

Part 1: The work from Part 1 determined the electric field threshold for 0.7 cm electrodes with a 0.8 cm insulation to be 572.8 V/cm assuming a static electric conductivity (Table 12). This threshold is the average between the width (349.5 V/cm) and length (795.1V/cm) electric field thresholds that matched the experimental lesion of 1.5 cm (width) by 2.9 cm (length). It is important to note that due to the mismatch between the electric field thresholds, the predicted width will be underestimated and the predicted length will be overestimated when using the average value of 572.8 V/cm. The model assumes an applied voltage of 2700 V, ninety 100-μs pulses, at a repetition rate of 1 pulse per second, and a viability value of 0.1% (S=0.001) as the complete cell death due to IRE exposure (FIG. 42). The rate equation used in the analysis is given by S=e^−k·E·twhere S is the cell viability post-IRE, E is the electric field, t is the cumulative exposure time, and k is the rate constant that dictates cell death. Specifically during this Part, it was determined that k=1.33996 assuming an E=572.8 V/cm, S=0.001, and t=0.009 s (90×100-μs). The k parameter was scaled by the duty cycle of the pulses (0.0001 s) in order to reflect the cell viability in the time scale in which the pulses were delivered (i.e. one pulse per second).

TABLE 12

Electric field thresholds for the static modeling approach from

experimental IRE lesions in liver.

Lesion
E-field
Average
Threshold

Conductivity
Dimensions
[V/cm]
[V/cm]
[V/cm]

Static-σ₀
x = 1.5 cm
349.5
349.5
572.8

Static-σ₀
y = 2.9 cm (distal)
796.2
795.1

Static-σ₀
y = 2.9 cm
795.6

(proximal)

A parametric study was constructed in order to explore the effect of electrode diameter (18G=1.27 mm, 16G=1.65 mm, 14G=2.11 mm), electrode spacing (0.4 cm, 0.8 cm, 1.2 cm, 1.6 cm), and electrode length (0.5 cm, 0.75 cm, 1.0 cm, 1.25 cm, and 1.5 cm). In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of all iterations we computed the volumes of tissue that would achieve a cell viability, S<0.001, and these results are reported in the table of FIG. 48A-B. The results with the specific minimum and maximum parameters from Part 1 are presented in Table 13 and demonstrate that with increasing probe diameter and electrode length a larger area/volume of IRE ablation is achieved for ninety 100-μs pulses delivered at 2700 V at a repetition rate of one pulse per second. FIGS. 43A-D shows the predicted regions of post-IRE cell viability isocontour levels with the solid white curve illustrating the 0.1%, 1.0%, and 10% cell viability levels. Of importance is the fact that if the electrodes are spaced too far apart, the resulting IRE zone of ablation is not contiguous and the treatment would fail between the electrodes as shown with Runs 60 and 10, respectively.

TABLE 13

Predicted IRE lesion dimensions for the min.

and max. parameters investigated in Part 1.

Spac-

Vol-

Diam-
ing
Length
Area
ume

Run
eter
(cm)
(cm)
(cm²)
(cm³)
x(cm)
y(cm)
x:y

60
14 G =
1.6
1.5
2.705
6.232
0.311
5.550
0.056

2.11 mm

10
18 G =
1.6
0.5
1.042
1.689
0.227
3.390
0.067

1.27 mm

49
18 G =
0.4
1.5
2.242
4.626
1.257
4.210
0.299

1.27 mm

3
14 G =
0.4
0.5
1.120
2.241
1.221
2.190
0.558

2.11 mm

In an effort to better understand the effects of the electrode geometry on the ablation region an extra set of values (Table 14) was generated. The closest outputs to a 1.5 cm×2.9 cm lesion size from parameters in Table 13 were modified to better approximate the targeted lesion. Considering all 60 different runs, number 15 is closest to the targeted values with a lesion geometry of 1.301 cm×2.84 cm.

TABLE 14

Predicted IRE lesion dimensions for parameters

approximating a 1.5 cm × 2.9 cm ablation region.

Spac-

Vol-

Diam-
ing
Length
Area
ume

Run
eter
(cm)
(cm)
(cm²)
(cm³)
x(cm)
y(cm)
x:y

3
14 G =
0.4
0.5
1.120
2.241
1.221
2.190
0.558

2.11 mm

1
18 G =
0.4
0.5
0.943
1.590
1.037
2.170
0.478

1.27 mm

15
14 G =
0.4
0.75
1.483
3.215
1.301
2.840
0.458

2.11 mm

18
14 G =
0.8
0.75
1.680
3.652
1.181
3.250
0.363

2.11 mm

Part 2: In Part 2 the electric field distribution assuming a dynamic electric conductivity was used to determine the threshold of cell death due to IRE exposure. Specifically during this Part, a sigmoid function (FIG. 44) with a baseline (0.067 S/m) and maximum (0.241 S/m) conductivity values was used (see Sel, D., et al., Sequential finite element model of tissue electropermeabilization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2005. 52(5): p. 816-27). This published function assumes that reversible electroporation starts at 460 V/cm and is irreversible at 700 V/cm as reported by Sel. et al. Using the dynamic conductivity function resulted in a more consistent electric field threshold between the width (615.7 V/cm) and the length (727.4 V/cm); therefore, using the average (670.1V/cm) provides a better prediction of the IRE lesions being achieved in vivo versus the ones predicted in Part 1 that assume a static conductivity (Table 15). The electric field threshold for IRE using the dynamic conductivity approach resulted in a revised k=1.14539 assuming an E=670.1V/cm, S=0.001, and t=0.009 s (90×100 μs). The k parameter was scaled by the duty cycle of the pulses (0.0001s) in order to reflect the cell viability in the time scale in which the pulses were delivered (i.e. one pulse per second).

TABLE 15

Electric field thresholds for the dynamic modeling approach

from experimental IRE lesions in liver.

E-field

Threshold

Conductivity
IRE Dimension
[V/cm]
Average
[V/cm]

Dynamic-
x = 1.5 cm
615.7
615.7
670.1

σ(E)

Dynamic-
y = 2.9 cm (distal)
720.7
727.4

σ(E)

Dynamic-
y = 2.9 cm
734.0

σ(E)
(proximal)

In Part 2, the effect of pulse strength (2000 V, 2250 V, 2500 V, 2750 V, 3000 V) and pulse number (20, 40, 60, 80, 100) was explicitly investigated and the results of the parametric study are provided in the table of FIG. 49 and a representative plot provided in FIG. 45. The results with the specific minimum and maximum parameters from Part 2 are presented in

Table 16 and demonstrate that with increasing pulse strength and pulse number a larger volume of IRE ablation is achieved at a repetition rate of one pulse per second (FIGS. 46A-D). In order to compare the results to the electric field threshold, both areas/volumes were computed and are provided as well. Similar to the results from Part 1, the white solid curve represents the 0.1%, 1.0%, and 10% cell viability isocontour levels due to IRE. For all voltages investigated, delivering one hundred 100-μs pulses covers a greater area/volume than the prediction by the 670.1 V/cm electric field threshold assumed with the dynamic conductivity function.

TABLE 16

Predicted lesion dimensions for the minimum and

maximum parameters investigated in Part 2.

Volt-

Vol-
E-
E-

age
Num-
Area
ume
Field
Field

Run
(V)
ber
(cm²)
(cm³)
(cm²)
(cm³)
x(cm)
y(cm)
x:y

3
2000
20
0.080
0.050
0.970
1.575
0.216
2.350
0.092

6
2000
100
1.209
2.238
0.970
1.575
0.646
1.630
0.396

27
3000
20
0.209
0.170
1.493
3.171
0.221
1.800
0.123

30
3000
100
1.900
4.604
1.493
3.171
0.946
1.130
0.837

Part 3: In this Part the exposure of liver tissue to 300 (5×60) and 360 (4×90) pulses were simulated at an applied voltage of 3000 V, 100-μs pulses, at a repetition rate of one pulse per second. From the cell viability plots in FIG. 47A-B it can be seen that with increasing number of pulses, larger zones of IRE ablation are achieved with the corresponding areas and volumes included in Table 17 and the table of FIG. 50. It is important to note that in this case the simulation assumes that there is sufficient thermal relaxation time between sets of pulses; thus preventing any potential thermal damage from Joule heating which is not simulated in this work.

TABLE 17

Predicted lesion dimensions for the 5 × 60 and

4 × 90 IRE pulses investigated in Part 3.

Vol-

Vol-
E-
E-

tage
Num-
Area
ume
Field
Field

Run
(V)
ber
(cm²)
(cm³)
(cm²)
(cm³)
x(cm)
y(cm)
x:y

16
3000
5 ×
6.135
27.282
1.493
3.171
2.877
4.900
0.587

60

19
3000
4 ×
6.950
33.202
1.493
3.171
3.287
5.540
0.593

90

Models with exploratory geometries were developed that include multiple voltage sources and current diffusers (balloons). FIGS. 51A-C present images of the raw geometries being tested and FIGS. 51D-F show the corresponding electric field distribution. In general, the most influential parameter remains the size of the electrodes and insulation. According to the values generated from these simulations, it seems like substantial helps to achieve more spherical lesions.

TABLE 18

Predicted IRE lesion dimensions for

exploratory models in Appendix D.

Spac-

Vol-

Diam-
ing
Length
Area
ume

Run
eter
(cm)
(cm)
(cm²)
(cm³)
x(cm)
y(cm)
x:y

61
0.211
0.4
0.5
1.453
1.807
1.201
2.850
0.421

62
0.211
0.4
1
1.617
2.129
1.321
3.670
0.360

63
0.211
0.4
1
2.008
3.041
1.241
2.955
0.420

64
0.211
0.4
0.5
1.389
1.929
1.261
2.810
0.449

65
0.211
0.4
0.5
0.976
1.142
1.421
2.000
0.711

The present invention has been described with reference to particular embodiments having various features. In light of the disclosure provided, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various modifications and variations can be made in the practice of the present invention without departing from the scope or spirit of the invention. One skilled in the art will recognize that the disclosed features may be used singularly, in any combination, or omitted based on the requirements and specifications of a given application or design. Other embodiments of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification and practice of the invention.

It is noted in particular that where a range of values is provided in this specification, each value between the upper and lower limits of that range is also specifically disclosed. The upper and lower limits of these smaller ranges may independently be included or excluded in the range as well. The singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. It is intended that the specification and examples be considered as exemplary in nature and that variations that do not depart from the essence of the invention fall within the scope of the invention. In particular, for method embodiments, the order of steps is merely exemplary and variations appreciated by a skilled artisan are included in the scope of the invention. Further, all of the references cited in this disclosure are each individually incorporated by reference herein in their entireties and as such are intended to provide an efficient way of supplementing the enabling disclosure of this invention as well as provide background detailing the level of ordinary skill in the art.

Claims

1. A method of treating a tissue with a medical treatment device that applies electrical treatment energy through one or more electrodes defining a target treatment area of the tissue and comprises a display device, the method comprising: providing one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to a tissue through one or more electrodes;modeling heat distribution and/or the electric field distribution in a tissue surrounding the electrodes based on the one or more parameters and a treatment protocol-related change in electrical conductivity for the target treatment are, which is a ratio of a maximum electrical conductivity that is reached during treatment to a baseline, non-electroporated, tissue-specific electrical conductivity;displaying a graphical representation of the heat and/or electric field distribution based on the modeled heat and/or electric field distribution in the display device;modifying one or more of the parameters of the treatment protocol based on the graphical representation of the heat and/or electric field distribution; andimplanting the electrodes in the tissue and delivering one or more electrical pulses to the tissue through the electrodes by way of a voltage pulse generator based on the one or more modified parameters.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters are chosen from one or more of voltage, electrode spacing, electrode length, treatment duration, number of pulses, pulse width, electric field intensity, electrode diameter, a baseline conductivity for the target treatment area, or a conductivity for a specific tissue type.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the treatment protocol-related change in electrical conductivity is calculated in real time based on measured voltages and currents before, during, and/or after pulse delivery.
4. A method of treatment planning for medical therapies involving administering electrical treatment energy, the method comprising: providing one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to tissue through one or more electrodes;modeling heat and/or electric field distribution in the tissue based on the parameters and a treatment protocol-related change in electrical conductivity for the target treatment area, which is a ratio of a maximum electrical conductivity that is reached during treatment to a baseline, non-electroporated, tissue-specific electrical conductivity; anddisplaying a graphical representation of the modeled heat and/or electric field distribution.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the heat distribution is modeled to estimate the Joule heating in the tissue and is calculated as:
6. The method of claim 4, further comprising specifying a cutoff heat distribution value and providing a graphical representation of the heat and/or electric field distribution curve as an isocontour line.
7. The method of claim 4, further comprising: modeling an electrical damage and/or a thermal damage in the tissue based on the parameters;displaying a graphical representation of the modeled electrical damage and/or thermal damage.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the electric field distribution is calculated as: ∇2ϕ=0where ϕ is the electric potential, this equation is solved with boundary conditions:{right arrow over (n)}·{right arrow over (J)}=0 at the boundariesϕ=Vin at the boundary of the first electrodeϕ=0 at the boundary of the second electrodewherein {right arrow over (n)} is the normal vector to the surface, {right arrow over (J)} is the electrical current and Vin is the electrical potential applied.
9. The method of claim 7, further comprising specifying a cutoff electrical field distribution value and providing a graphical representation of the electrical field distribution value as an isocontour line.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising one or more databases comprising a plurality of sets of parameters for treatment protocols stored in the database.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the graphical representations of the modeled heat and electrical field distributions are derived from Cassini oval calculations.
12. The method of claim 7, wherein the graphical representation of the modeled thermal damage and/or electrical damage is derived from Cassini oval calculations.
13. The method of claim 4, wherein the parameters are chosen from one or more of voltage, electrode spacing, electrode diameter, electrode length, number of pulses, treatment duration, pulse width, electric field intensity, a baseline conductivity for the target treatment area, or a conductivity for a specific tissue type.
14. The method of claim 4, further comprising: modeling one or more of a thermally damaged region, IRE necrotic region, IRE apoptotic region, reversible electroporation region, and region where there is no effect in the tissue based on the parameters; anddisplaying a graphical representation of the modeled regions.
15. The method of claim 4, further comprising: modeling one or more of a thermally damaged region, an electroporation region, and a region where there is no effect in the tissue based on the parameters; anddisplaying a graphical representation of the modeled regions.
16. A system for treatment planning for medical therapies involving administering electrical treatment energy, the system comprising: a computer comprising: a memory;a display device;a processor coupled to the memory and the display device; anda treatment planning module stored in the memory and executable by the processor, the treatment planning module adapted to: receive as input one or more parameters of a treatment protocol for delivering one or more electrical pulses to tissue through one or more electrodes;model heat and/or electric field distribution in the tissue based on the parameters and a treatment protocol-related change in electrical conductivity for the target treatment area, which is a ratio of a maximum electrical conductivity that is reached during treatment to a baseline, non-electroporated, tissue-specific electrical conductivity;display a graphical representation of the modeled heat and/or electric field distribution on the display device.
17. The system of claim 16, further comprising one or more databases comprising a plurality of sets of parameters for treatment protocols stored in the databases.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the inputs are chosen from one or more of voltage, electrode spacing, treatment duration, pulse width, electric field intensity, a baseline conductivity for the target treatment area, or a conductivity for a specific tissue type.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the conductivity for a specific tissue type is provided in a database for a plurality of tissues.
20. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more electrodes is provided by one or more bipolar probes.
21. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more electrodes are provided by one or more single needle electrodes.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/012,832, filed on Aug. 28, 2013, which published as U.S. Pat. No. 9,283,051832, which CIP relies on and claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/694,144, filed on Aug. 28, 2012. Application Ser. No. 14/012,832 is a CIP of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/491,151, filed on Jun. 24, 2009, which published as U.S. Pat. No. 8,992,517, which relies on and claims the benefit of the filing dates of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 61/171,564, filed on Apr. 22, 2009, 61/167,997, filed on Apr. 9, 2009, and 61/075,216, filed on Jun. 24, 2008. Application Ser. No. 12/491,151 is also a CIP of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/432,295, filed on Apr. 29, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,598,691, which relies on and claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/125,840, filed on Apr. 29, 2008. The present application also relies on and claims priority to and the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/910,655, filed Dec. 2, 2013. The disclosures of these patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.

US Referenced Citations (794)

Number	Name	Date	Kind
1653819	Northcott et al.	Dec 1927	A
3730238	Butler	May 1973	A
3746004	Jankelson	Jul 1973	A
3871359	Pacela	Mar 1975	A
4016886	Doss et al.	Apr 1977	A
4037341	Odle et al.	Jul 1977	A
4216860	Heimann	Aug 1980	A
4226246	Fragnet	Oct 1980	A
4262672	Kief	Apr 1981	A
4267047	Henne et al.	May 1981	A
4278092	Borsanyi et al.	Jul 1981	A
4299217	Sagae et al.	Nov 1981	A
4311148	Courtney et al.	Jan 1982	A
4336881	Babb et al.	Jun 1982	A
4344436	Kubota	Aug 1982	A
4392855	Oreopoulos et al.	Jul 1983	A
4406827	Carim	Sep 1983	A
4407943	Cole et al.	Oct 1983	A
4416276	Newton et al.	Nov 1983	A
4447235	Clarke	May 1984	A
4469098	Davi	Sep 1984	A
4489535	Veltman	Dec 1984	A
4512765	Muto	Apr 1985	A
4580572	Granek et al.	Apr 1986	A
4636199	Victor	Jan 1987	A
4672969	Dew	Jun 1987	A
4676258	Inokuchi et al.	Jun 1987	A
4676782	Yamamoto et al.	Jun 1987	A
4687471	Twardowski et al.	Aug 1987	A
4716896	Ackerman	Jan 1988	A
4723549	Wholey et al.	Feb 1988	A
D294519	Hardy	Mar 1988	S
4756838	Veltman	Jul 1988	A
4772269	Twardowski et al.	Sep 1988	A
4798585	Inoue et al.	Jan 1989	A
4810963	Blake-Coleman et al.	Mar 1989	A
4813929	Semrad	Mar 1989	A
4819637	Dormandy et al.	Apr 1989	A
4822470	Chang	Apr 1989	A
4836204	Landymore et al.	Jun 1989	A
4840172	Augustine et al.	Jun 1989	A
4863426	Ferragamo et al.	Sep 1989	A
4885003	Hillstead	Dec 1989	A
4886496	Conoscenti et al.	Dec 1989	A
4886502	Poirier et al.	Dec 1989	A
4889634	El-Rashidy	Dec 1989	A
4907601	Frick	Mar 1990	A
4919148	Muccio	Apr 1990	A
4920978	Colvin	May 1990	A
4921484	Hillstead	May 1990	A
4946793	Marshall, III	Aug 1990	A
4976709	Sand	Dec 1990	A
4981477	Schon et al.	Jan 1991	A
4986810	Semrad	Jan 1991	A
4987895	Heimlich	Jan 1991	A
5019034	Weaver et al.	May 1991	A
5031775	Kane	Jul 1991	A
5052391	Silberstone et al.	Oct 1991	A
5053013	Ensminger et al.	Oct 1991	A
5058605	Slovak	Oct 1991	A
5071558	Itoh	Dec 1991	A
5098843	Calvin	Mar 1992	A
5122137	Lennox	Jun 1992	A
5134070	Casnig	Jul 1992	A
5137517	Loney et al.	Aug 1992	A
5141499	Zappacosta	Aug 1992	A
D329496	Wotton	Sep 1992	S
5156597	Verreet et al.	Oct 1992	A
5173158	Schmukler	Dec 1992	A
5186715	Phillips et al.	Feb 1993	A
5186800	Dower	Feb 1993	A
5188592	Hakki	Feb 1993	A
5190541	Abele et al.	Mar 1993	A
5192312	Orton	Mar 1993	A
5193537	Freeman	Mar 1993	A
5209723	Twardowski et al.	May 1993	A
5215530	Hogan	Jun 1993	A
5224933	Bromander	Jul 1993	A
5227730	King et al.	Jul 1993	A
5242415	Kantrowitz et al.	Sep 1993	A
5273525	Hofmann	Dec 1993	A
D343687	Houghton et al.	Jan 1994	S
5277201	Stern	Jan 1994	A
5279564	Taylor	Jan 1994	A
5281213	Milder	Jan 1994	A
5283194	Schmukler	Feb 1994	A
5290263	Wigness et al.	Mar 1994	A
5308325	Quinn et al.	May 1994	A
5308338	Helfrich	May 1994	A
5318543	Ross et al.	Jun 1994	A
5318563	Malis et al.	Jun 1994	A
5328451	Davis et al.	Jul 1994	A
5334167	Cocanower	Aug 1994	A
5348554	Imran et al.	Sep 1994	A
D351661	Fischer	Oct 1994	S
5383917	Desai et al.	Jan 1995	A
5389069	Weaver	Feb 1995	A
5391158	Peters	Feb 1995	A
5403311	Abele et al.	Apr 1995	A
5405320	Twardowski et al.	Apr 1995	A
5425752	Vu Nguyen	Jun 1995	A
5439440	Hofmann	Aug 1995	A
5458625	Kendall	Oct 1995	A
5484400	Edwards et al.	Jan 1996	A
5484401	Rodriguez et al.	Jan 1996	A
5533999	Hood et al.	Jul 1996	A
5536240	Edwards et al.	Jul 1996	A
5536267	Edwards et al.	Jul 1996	A
5540737	Fenn	Jul 1996	A
5546940	Panescu et al.	Aug 1996	A
5562720	Stern et al.	Oct 1996	A
5575811	Reid et al.	Nov 1996	A
D376652	Hunt et al.	Dec 1996	S
5582588	Sakurai et al.	Dec 1996	A
5586982	Abela	Dec 1996	A
5588424	Insler et al.	Dec 1996	A
5588960	Edwards et al.	Dec 1996	A
5599294	Edwards et al.	Feb 1997	A
5599311	Raulerson	Feb 1997	A
5616126	Malekmehr et al.	Apr 1997	A
5620479	Diederich	Apr 1997	A
5626146	Barber et al.	May 1997	A
D380272	Partika et al.	Jun 1997	S
5634899	Shapland et al.	Jun 1997	A
5643197	Brucker et al.	Jul 1997	A
5645855	Lorenz	Jul 1997	A
5672173	Gough et al.	Sep 1997	A
5674267	Mir et al.	Oct 1997	A
5683384	Gough et al.	Nov 1997	A
5687723	Avitall	Nov 1997	A
5690620	Knott	Nov 1997	A
5697905	d'Ambrosio	Dec 1997	A
5700252	Klingenstein	Dec 1997	A
5702359	Hofmann et al.	Dec 1997	A
5718246	Vona	Feb 1998	A
5720921	Meserol	Feb 1998	A
5735847	Gough et al.	Apr 1998	A
5752939	Makoto	May 1998	A
5778894	Dorogi et al.	Jul 1998	A
5782882	Lerman et al.	Jul 1998	A
5800378	Edwards et al.	Sep 1998	A
5800484	Gough et al.	Sep 1998	A
5807272	Kun et al.	Sep 1998	A
5807306	Shapland et al.	Sep 1998	A
5807395	Mulier et al.	Sep 1998	A
5810742	Pearlman	Sep 1998	A
5810762	Hofmann	Sep 1998	A
5830184	Basta	Nov 1998	A
5836897	Sakurai et al.	Nov 1998	A
5836905	Lemelson et al.	Nov 1998	A
5843026	Edwards et al.	Dec 1998	A
5843182	Goldstein	Dec 1998	A
5865787	Shapland et al.	Feb 1999	A
5868708	Hart et al.	Feb 1999	A
5873849	Bernard	Feb 1999	A
5904648	Arndt et al.	May 1999	A
5919142	Boone et al.	Jul 1999	A
5919191	Lennox et al.	Jul 1999	A
5921982	Lesh et al.	Jul 1999	A
5944710	Dev et al.	Aug 1999	A
5947284	Foster	Sep 1999	A
5947889	Hehrlein	Sep 1999	A
5951546	Lorentzen	Sep 1999	A
5954745	Gertler et al.	Sep 1999	A
5957919	Laufer	Sep 1999	A
5957963	Dobak	Sep 1999	A
5968006	Hofmann	Oct 1999	A
5983131	Weaver et al.	Nov 1999	A
5984896	Boyd	Nov 1999	A
5991697	Nelson et al.	Nov 1999	A
5999847	Elstrom	Dec 1999	A
6004339	Wijay	Dec 1999	A
6009347	Hofmann	Dec 1999	A
6009877	Edwards	Jan 2000	A
6010613	Walters et al.	Jan 2000	A
6016452	Kasevich	Jan 2000	A
6029090	Herbst	Feb 2000	A
6041252	Walker et al.	Mar 2000	A
6043066	Mangano et al.	Mar 2000	A
6050994	Sherman	Apr 2000	A
6055453	Hofmann et al.	Apr 2000	A
6059780	Gough et al.	May 2000	A
6066134	Eggers et al.	May 2000	A
6068121	McGlinch	May 2000	A
6068650	Hofmann et al.	May 2000	A
6071281	Burnside et al.	Jun 2000	A
6074374	Fulton	Jun 2000	A
6074389	Levine et al.	Jun 2000	A
6085115	Weaver et al.	Jul 2000	A
6090016	Kuo	Jul 2000	A
6090105	Zepeda et al.	Jul 2000	A
6090106	Goble et al.	Jul 2000	A
D430015	Himbert et al.	Aug 2000	S
6096035	Sodhi et al.	Aug 2000	A
6102885	Bass	Aug 2000	A
6106521	Blewett et al.	Aug 2000	A
6109270	Mah et al.	Aug 2000	A
6110192	Ravenscroft et al.	Aug 2000	A
6113593	Tu et al.	Sep 2000	A
6116330	Salyer	Sep 2000	A
6122599	Mehta	Sep 2000	A
6123701	Nezhat	Sep 2000	A
6132397	Davis et al.	Oct 2000	A
6132419	Hofmann	Oct 2000	A
6134460	Chance	Oct 2000	A
6139545	Utley et al.	Oct 2000	A
6150148	Nanda et al.	Nov 2000	A
6159163	Strauss et al.	Dec 2000	A
6178354	Gibson	Jan 2001	B1
D437941	Frattini	Feb 2001	S
6193715	Wrublewski et al.	Feb 2001	B1
6198970	Freed et al.	Mar 2001	B1
6200314	Sherman	Mar 2001	B1
6208893	Hofmann	Mar 2001	B1
6210402	Olsen et al.	Apr 2001	B1
6212433	Behl	Apr 2001	B1
6216034	Hofmann et al.	Apr 2001	B1
6219577	Brown, III et al.	Apr 2001	B1
D442697	Hajianpour	May 2001	S
6233490	Kasevich	May 2001	B1
6235023	Lee et al.	May 2001	B1
D443360	Haberland	Jun 2001	S
6241702	Lundquist et al.	Jun 2001	B1
6241725	Cosman	Jun 2001	B1
D445198	Frattini	Jul 2001	S
6258100	Alferness et al.	Jul 2001	B1
6261831	Agee	Jul 2001	B1
6277114	Bullivant et al.	Aug 2001	B1
6278895	Bernard	Aug 2001	B1
6280441	Ryan	Aug 2001	B1
6283988	Laufer et al.	Sep 2001	B1
6283989	Laufer et al.	Sep 2001	B1
6284140	Sommermeyer et al.	Sep 2001	B1
6287293	Jones et al.	Sep 2001	B1
6287304	Eggers et al.	Sep 2001	B1
6296636	Cheng et al.	Oct 2001	B1
6298726	Adachi et al.	Oct 2001	B1
6299633	Laufer	Oct 2001	B1
6300108	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2001	B1
D450391	Hunt et al.	Nov 2001	S
6312428	Eggers et al.	Nov 2001	B1
6326177	Schoenbach et al.	Dec 2001	B1
6327505	Medhkour et al.	Dec 2001	B1
6328689	Gonzalez et al.	Dec 2001	B1
6347247	Dev et al.	Feb 2002	B1
6349233	Adams	Feb 2002	B1
6351674	Silverstone	Feb 2002	B2
6387671	Rubinsky et al.	May 2002	B1
6398779	Buysse et al.	Jun 2002	B1
6403348	Rubinsky et al.	Jun 2002	B1
6405732	Edwards et al.	Jun 2002	B1
6411852	Danek et al.	Jun 2002	B1
6419674	Bowser et al.	Jul 2002	B1
6443952	Mulier et al.	Sep 2002	B1
6463331	Edwards	Oct 2002	B1
6470211	Ideker et al.	Oct 2002	B1
6482221	Hebert et al.	Nov 2002	B1
6482619	Rubinsky et al.	Nov 2002	B1
6485487	Sherman	Nov 2002	B1
6488673	Laufer et al.	Dec 2002	B1
6488678	Sherman	Dec 2002	B2
6488680	Francischelli et al.	Dec 2002	B1
6491706	Alferness et al.	Dec 2002	B1
6493589	Medhkour et al.	Dec 2002	B1
6493592	Leonard et al.	Dec 2002	B1
6500173	Underwood et al.	Dec 2002	B2
6503248	Levine	Jan 2003	B1
6506189	Rittman et al.	Jan 2003	B1
6514248	Eggers et al.	Feb 2003	B1
6520183	Amar	Feb 2003	B2
6526320	Mitchell	Feb 2003	B2
D471640	McMichael et al.	Mar 2003	S
D471641	McMichael et al.	Mar 2003	S
6530922	Cosman et al.	Mar 2003	B2
6533784	Truckai et al.	Mar 2003	B2
6537976	Gupta	Mar 2003	B1
6558378	Sherman et al.	May 2003	B2
6562604	Rubinsky et al.	May 2003	B2
6569162	He	May 2003	B2
6575969	Rittman et al.	Jun 2003	B1
6589161	Corcoran	Jul 2003	B2
6592594	Rimbaugh et al.	Jul 2003	B2
6607529	Jones et al.	Aug 2003	B1
6610054	Edwards et al.	Aug 2003	B1
6611706	Avrahami et al.	Aug 2003	B2
6613211	Mccormick et al.	Sep 2003	B1
6616657	Simpson et al.	Sep 2003	B2
6627421	Unger et al.	Sep 2003	B1
D480816	McMichael et al.	Oct 2003	S
6634363	Danek et al.	Oct 2003	B1
6638253	Breznock	Oct 2003	B2
6653091	Dunn et al.	Nov 2003	B1
6666858	Lafontaine	Dec 2003	B2
6669691	Taimisto	Dec 2003	B1
6673070	Edwards et al.	Jan 2004	B2
6678558	Dimmer et al.	Jan 2004	B1
6689096	Loubens et al.	Feb 2004	B1
6692493	Mcgovern et al.	Feb 2004	B2
6694979	Deem et al.	Feb 2004	B2
6694984	Habib	Feb 2004	B2
6695861	Rosenberg et al.	Feb 2004	B1
6697669	Dev et al.	Feb 2004	B2
6697670	Chomenky et al.	Feb 2004	B2
6702808	Kreindel	Mar 2004	B1
6712811	Underwood et al.	Mar 2004	B2
D489973	Root et al.	May 2004	S
6753171	Karube et al.	Jun 2004	B2
6761716	Kadhiresan et al.	Jul 2004	B2
D495807	Agbodoe et al.	Sep 2004	S
6795728	Chornenky et al.	Sep 2004	B2
6801804	Miller et al.	Oct 2004	B2
6812204	McHale et al.	Nov 2004	B1
6837886	Collins et al.	Jan 2005	B2
6847848	Sterzer et al.	Jan 2005	B2
6860847	Alferness et al.	Mar 2005	B2
6865416	Dev et al.	Mar 2005	B2
6881213	Ryan et al.	Apr 2005	B2
6892099	Jaafar et al.	May 2005	B2
6895267	Panescu et al.	May 2005	B2
6905480	McGuckin et al.	Jun 2005	B2
6912417	Bernard et al.	Jun 2005	B1
6927049	Rubinsky et al.	Aug 2005	B2
6941950	Wilson et al.	Sep 2005	B2
6942681	Johnson	Sep 2005	B2
6958062	Gough et al.	Oct 2005	B1
6960189	Bates et al.	Nov 2005	B2
6962587	Johnson et al.	Nov 2005	B2
6972013	Zhang et al.	Dec 2005	B1
6972014	Eum et al.	Dec 2005	B2
6989010	Francischelli et al.	Jan 2006	B2
6994689	Zadno-Azizi et al.	Feb 2006	B1
6994706	Chornenky et al.	Feb 2006	B2
7011094	Rapacki et al.	Mar 2006	B2
7012061	Reiss et al.	Mar 2006	B1
7027869	Danek et al.	Apr 2006	B2
7036510	Zgoda et al.	May 2006	B2
7053063	Rubinsky et al.	May 2006	B2
7054685	Dimmer et al.	May 2006	B2
7063698	Whayne et al.	Jun 2006	B2
7087040	McGuckin et al.	Aug 2006	B2
7097612	Bertolero et al.	Aug 2006	B2
7100616	Springmeyer	Sep 2006	B2
7113821	Sun et al.	Sep 2006	B1
7130697	Chornenky et al.	Oct 2006	B2
7211083	Chornenky et al.	May 2007	B2
7232437	Berman et al.	Jun 2007	B2
7250048	Francischelli et al.	Jul 2007	B2
D549332	Matsumoto et al.	Aug 2007	S
7257450	Auth et al.	Aug 2007	B2
7264002	Danek et al.	Sep 2007	B2
7267676	Chornenky et al.	Sep 2007	B2
7273055	Danek et al.	Sep 2007	B2
7291146	Steinke et al.	Nov 2007	B2
7331940	Sommerich	Feb 2008	B2
7331949	Marisi	Feb 2008	B2
7341558	Torre et al.	Mar 2008	B2
7344533	Pearson et al.	Mar 2008	B2
D565743	Phillips et al.	Apr 2008	S
D571478	Horacek	Jun 2008	S
7387626	Edwards et al.	Jun 2008	B2
7399747	Clair et al.	Jul 2008	B1
D575399	Matsumoto et al.	Aug 2008	S
D575402	Sandor	Aug 2008	S
7419487	Johnson et al.	Sep 2008	B2
7434578	Dillard et al.	Oct 2008	B2
7449019	Uchida et al.	Nov 2008	B2
7451765	Adler	Nov 2008	B2
7455675	Schur et al.	Nov 2008	B2
7476203	DeVore et al.	Jan 2009	B2
7520877	Lee et al.	Apr 2009	B2
7533671	Gonzalez et al.	May 2009	B2
D595422	Mustapha	Jun 2009	S
7544301	Shah et al.	Jun 2009	B2
7549984	Mathis	Jun 2009	B2
7565208	Harris et al.	Jul 2009	B2
7571729	Saadat et al.	Aug 2009	B2
7632291	Stephens et al.	Dec 2009	B2
7655004	Long	Feb 2010	B2
7674249	Ivorra et al.	Mar 2010	B2
7680543	Azure	Mar 2010	B2
D613418	Ryan et al.	Apr 2010	S
7718409	Rubinsky et al.	May 2010	B2
7722606	Azure	May 2010	B2
7742795	Stone et al.	Jun 2010	B2
7765010	Chornenky et al.	Jul 2010	B2
7771401	Hekmat et al.	Aug 2010	B2
RE42016	Chornenky et al.	Dec 2010	E
D630321	Hamilton	Jan 2011	S
D631154	Hamilton	Jan 2011	S
RE42277	Jaafar et al.	Apr 2011	E
7918852	Tullis et al.	Apr 2011	B2
7937143	Demarais et al.	May 2011	B2
7938824	Chornenky et al.	May 2011	B2
7951582	Gazit et al.	May 2011	B2
7955827	Rubinsky et al.	Jun 2011	B2
RE42835	Chornenky et al.	Oct 2011	E
D647628	Helfteren	Oct 2011	S
8048067	Davalos	Nov 2011	B2
RE43009	Chornenky et al.	Dec 2011	E
8109926	Azure	Feb 2012	B2
8114070	Rubinsky et al.	Feb 2012	B2
8162918	Ivorra et al.	Apr 2012	B2
8187269	Shadduck et al.	May 2012	B2
8221411	Francischelli et al.	Jul 2012	B2
8231603	Hobbs et al.	Jul 2012	B2
8240468	Wilkinson et al.	Aug 2012	B2
8251986	Chornenky et al.	Aug 2012	B2
8267927	Dalal et al.	Sep 2012	B2
8267936	Hushka et al.	Sep 2012	B2
8282631	Davalos et al.	Oct 2012	B2
8298222	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2012	B2
8348921	Ivorra et al.	Jan 2013	B2
D677798	Hart et al.	Mar 2013	S
8425455	Nentwick	Apr 2013	B2
8425505	Long	Apr 2013	B2
8454594	Demarais et al.	Jun 2013	B2
8465484	Davalos et al.	Jun 2013	B2
8511317	Thapliyal et al.	Aug 2013	B2
8518031	Boyden et al.	Aug 2013	B2
8562588	Hobbs et al.	Oct 2013	B2
8603087	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2013	B2
8632534	Pearson et al.	Jan 2014	B2
8634929	Chornenky et al.	Jan 2014	B2
8647338	Chornenky et al.	Feb 2014	B2
8715276	Thompson et al.	May 2014	B2
8753335	Moshe et al.	Jun 2014	B2
8814860	Davalos et al.	Aug 2014	B2
8835166	Phillips et al.	Sep 2014	B2
8845635	Daniel et al.	Sep 2014	B2
8880195	Azure	Nov 2014	B2
8903488	Callas et al.	Dec 2014	B2
8906006	Chornenky et al.	Dec 2014	B2
8926606	Davalos et al.	Jan 2015	B2
8958888	Chornenky et al.	Feb 2015	B2
8968542	Davalos et al.	Mar 2015	B2
8992517	Davalos et al.	Mar 2015	B2
9005189	Davalos et al.	Apr 2015	B2
9078665	Moss et al.	Jul 2015	B2
9149331	Deem et al.	Oct 2015	B2
9173704	Hobbs et al.	Nov 2015	B2
9198733	Neal, II et al.	Dec 2015	B2
9283051	Garcia et al.	Mar 2016	B2
9598691	Davalos	Mar 2017	B2
9867652	Sano et al.	Jan 2018	B2
20010039393	Mori et al.	Nov 2001	A1
20010044596	Jaafar	Nov 2001	A1
20010046706	Rubinsky et al.	Nov 2001	A1
20010047167	Heggeness	Nov 2001	A1
20010051366	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2001	A1
20020002393	Mitchell	Jan 2002	A1
20020010491	Schoenbach et al.	Jan 2002	A1
20020022864	Mahvi et al.	Feb 2002	A1
20020040204	Dev et al.	Apr 2002	A1
20020049370	Laufer et al.	Apr 2002	A1
20020052601	Goldberg et al.	May 2002	A1
20020055731	Atala et al.	May 2002	A1
20020065541	Fredricks et al.	May 2002	A1
20020072742	Schaefer et al.	Jun 2002	A1
20020077314	Falk et al.	Jun 2002	A1
20020077676	Schroeppel et al.	Jun 2002	A1
20020082543	Park et al.	Jun 2002	A1
20020099323	Dev et al.	Jul 2002	A1
20020111615	Cosman et al.	Aug 2002	A1
20020112729	DeVore et al.	Aug 2002	A1
20020115208	Mitchell et al.	Aug 2002	A1
20020119437	Grooms et al.	Aug 2002	A1
20020133324	Weaver et al.	Sep 2002	A1
20020137121	Rubinsky et al.	Sep 2002	A1
20020138075	Edwards et al.	Sep 2002	A1
20020138117	Son	Sep 2002	A1
20020143365	Herbst	Oct 2002	A1
20020147462	Mair et al.	Oct 2002	A1
20020156472	Lee et al.	Oct 2002	A1
20020161361	Sherman et al.	Oct 2002	A1
20020183684	Dev et al.	Dec 2002	A1
20020183735	Edwards et al.	Dec 2002	A1
20020183740	Edwards et al.	Dec 2002	A1
20020188242	Wu	Dec 2002	A1
20020193784	McHale et al.	Dec 2002	A1
20020193831	Smith	Dec 2002	A1
20030009110	Tu et al.	Jan 2003	A1
20030016168	Jandrell	Jan 2003	A1
20030055220	Legrain	Mar 2003	A1
20030055420	Kadhiresan et al.	Mar 2003	A1
20030059945	Dzekunov et al.	Mar 2003	A1
20030060856	Chornenky et al.	Mar 2003	A1
20030078490	Damasco et al.	Apr 2003	A1
20030088189	Tu et al.	May 2003	A1
20030088199	Kawaji	May 2003	A1
20030096407	Atala et al.	May 2003	A1
20030105454	Cucin	Jun 2003	A1
20030109871	Johnson et al.	Jun 2003	A1
20030127090	Gifford et al.	Jul 2003	A1
20030130711	Pearson et al.	Jul 2003	A1
20030135242	Mongeon et al.	Jul 2003	A1
20030154988	DeVore et al.	Aug 2003	A1
20030159700	Laufer et al.	Aug 2003	A1
20030166181	Rubinsky et al.	Sep 2003	A1
20030170898	Gundersen et al.	Sep 2003	A1
20030194808	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2003	A1
20030195385	DeVore	Oct 2003	A1
20030195406	Jenkins et al.	Oct 2003	A1
20030199050	Mangano et al.	Oct 2003	A1
20030208200	Palanker et al.	Nov 2003	A1
20030208236	Heil et al.	Nov 2003	A1
20030212394	Pearson et al.	Nov 2003	A1
20030212412	Dillard et al.	Nov 2003	A1
20030225360	Eppstein et al.	Dec 2003	A1
20030228344	Fields et al.	Dec 2003	A1
20040009459	Anderson et al.	Jan 2004	A1
20040019371	Jaafar et al.	Jan 2004	A1
20040055606	Hendricksen et al.	Mar 2004	A1
20040059328	Daniel et al.	Mar 2004	A1
20040059389	Chornenky et al.	Mar 2004	A1
20040068228	Cunningham	Apr 2004	A1
20040116965	Falkenberg	Jun 2004	A1
20040133194	Eum et al.	Jul 2004	A1
20040138715	Groeningen et al.	Jul 2004	A1
20040146877	Diss et al.	Jul 2004	A1
20040153057	Davison	Aug 2004	A1
20040176855	Badylak	Sep 2004	A1
20040193097	Hofmann et al.	Sep 2004	A1
20040199159	Lee et al.	Oct 2004	A1
20040200484	Springmeyer	Oct 2004	A1
20040206349	Alferness et al.	Oct 2004	A1
20040210248	Gordon et al.	Oct 2004	A1
20040230187	Lee et al.	Nov 2004	A1
20040236376	Miklavcic et al.	Nov 2004	A1
20040243107	Macoviak et al.	Dec 2004	A1
20040267189	Mavor et al.	Dec 2004	A1
20040267340	Cioanta et al.	Dec 2004	A1
20050010209	Lee et al.	Jan 2005	A1
20050010259	Gerber	Jan 2005	A1
20050013870	Freyman et al.	Jan 2005	A1
20050020965	Rioux et al.	Jan 2005	A1
20050043726	Mchale et al.	Feb 2005	A1
20050049541	Behar et al.	Mar 2005	A1
20050061322	Freitag	Mar 2005	A1
20050066974	Fields et al.	Mar 2005	A1
20050143817	Hunter et al.	Jun 2005	A1
20050165393	Eppstein	Jul 2005	A1
20050171522	Christopherson	Aug 2005	A1
20050171523	Rubinsky et al.	Aug 2005	A1
20050171574	Rubinsky et al.	Aug 2005	A1
20050182462	Chornenky et al.	Aug 2005	A1
20050197619	Rule et al.	Sep 2005	A1
20050261672	Deem et al.	Nov 2005	A1
20050267407	Goldman	Dec 2005	A1
20050282284	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2005	A1
20050288684	Aronson et al.	Dec 2005	A1
20050288702	McGurk et al.	Dec 2005	A1
20050288730	Deem et al.	Dec 2005	A1
20060004356	Bilski et al.	Jan 2006	A1
20060004400	McGurk et al.	Jan 2006	A1
20060009748	Mathis	Jan 2006	A1
20060015147	Persson et al.	Jan 2006	A1
20060020347	Barrett et al.	Jan 2006	A1
20060024359	Walker et al.	Feb 2006	A1
20060025760	Podhajsky	Feb 2006	A1
20060074413	Behzadian	Apr 2006	A1
20060079838	Walker et al.	Apr 2006	A1
20060079845	Howard et al.	Apr 2006	A1
20060079883	Elmouelhi et al.	Apr 2006	A1
20060085054	Zikorus et al.	Apr 2006	A1
20060089635	Young et al.	Apr 2006	A1
20060121610	Rubinsky et al.	Jun 2006	A1
20060142801	Demarais	Jun 2006	A1
20060149123	Vidlund et al.	Jul 2006	A1
20060173490	Lafontaine et al.	Aug 2006	A1
20060182684	Beliveau	Aug 2006	A1
20060195146	Tracey et al.	Aug 2006	A1
20060212032	Daniel et al.	Sep 2006	A1
20060212078	Demarais et al.	Sep 2006	A1
20060217703	Chornenky et al.	Sep 2006	A1
20060224188	Libbus et al.	Oct 2006	A1
20060235474	Demarais	Oct 2006	A1
20060247619	Kaplan et al.	Nov 2006	A1
20060264752	Rubinsky et al.	Nov 2006	A1
20060264807	Westersten et al.	Nov 2006	A1
20060269531	Beebe et al.	Nov 2006	A1
20060276710	Krishnan	Dec 2006	A1
20060283462	Fields et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20060293713	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20060293725	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20060293730	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20060293731	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20060293734	Scott et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20070010805	Fedewa et al.	Jan 2007	A1
20070016183	Lee et al.	Jan 2007	A1
20070016185	Tullis et al.	Jan 2007	A1
20070021803	Deem et al.	Jan 2007	A1
20070025919	Deem et al.	Feb 2007	A1
20070043345	Davalos et al.	Feb 2007	A1
20070060989	Deem et al.	Mar 2007	A1
20070078391	Wortley et al.	Apr 2007	A1
20070088347	Young et al.	Apr 2007	A1
20070093789	Smith	Apr 2007	A1
20070096048	Clerc	May 2007	A1
20070118069	Persson et al.	May 2007	A1
20070129711	Altshuler et al.	Jun 2007	A1
20070129760	Demarais et al.	Jun 2007	A1
20070156135	Rubinsky et al.	Jul 2007	A1
20070191889	Lang	Aug 2007	A1
20070203486	Young	Aug 2007	A1
20070230757	Trachtenberg et al.	Oct 2007	A1
20070239099	Goldfarb et al.	Oct 2007	A1
20070244521	Bomzin et al.	Oct 2007	A1
20070287950	Kjeken et al.	Dec 2007	A1
20070295336	Nelson et al.	Dec 2007	A1
20070295337	Nelson et al.	Dec 2007	A1
20080015571	Rubinsky et al.	Jan 2008	A1
20080021371	Rubinsky et al.	Jan 2008	A1
20080027314	Miyazaki et al.	Jan 2008	A1
20080027343	Fields et al.	Jan 2008	A1
20080033340	Heller et al.	Feb 2008	A1
20080033417	Nields et al.	Feb 2008	A1
20080045880	Kjeken et al.	Feb 2008	A1
20080052786	Lin et al.	Feb 2008	A1
20080071262	Azure	Mar 2008	A1
20080097139	Clerc et al.	Apr 2008	A1
20080097422	Edwards et al.	Apr 2008	A1
20080103529	Schoenbach et al.	May 2008	A1
20080121375	Richason et al.	May 2008	A1
20080125772	Stone et al.	May 2008	A1
20080132826	Shadduck et al.	Jun 2008	A1
20080132884	Rubinsky et al.	Jun 2008	A1
20080132885	Rubinsky et al.	Jun 2008	A1
20080140064	Vegesna	Jun 2008	A1
20080146934	Czygan et al.	Jun 2008	A1
20080154259	Gough et al.	Jun 2008	A1
20080167649	Edwards et al.	Jul 2008	A1
20080171985	Karakoca	Jul 2008	A1
20080190434	Wai	Aug 2008	A1
20080200911	Long	Aug 2008	A1
20080200912	Long	Aug 2008	A1
20080208052	LePivert et al.	Aug 2008	A1
20080210243	Clayton et al.	Sep 2008	A1
20080214986	Ivorra et al.	Sep 2008	A1
20080236593	Nelson et al.	Oct 2008	A1
20080249503	Fields et al.	Oct 2008	A1
20080262489	Steinke	Oct 2008	A1
20080269586	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2008	A1
20080269838	Brighton et al.	Oct 2008	A1
20080275465	Paul et al.	Nov 2008	A1
20080281319	Paul et al.	Nov 2008	A1
20080283065	Chang et al.	Nov 2008	A1
20080288038	Paul et al.	Nov 2008	A1
20080300589	Paul et al.	Dec 2008	A1
20080306427	Bailey	Dec 2008	A1
20080312599	Rosenberg	Dec 2008	A1
20090018206	Barkan et al.	Jan 2009	A1
20090024075	Schroeppel et al.	Jan 2009	A1
20090029407	Gazit et al.	Jan 2009	A1
20090038752	Weng et al.	Feb 2009	A1
20090062788	Long et al.	Mar 2009	A1
20090062792	Vakharia et al.	Mar 2009	A1
20090081272	Clarke et al.	Mar 2009	A1
20090105703	Shadduck	Apr 2009	A1
20090114226	Deem et al.	May 2009	A1
20090125009	Zikorus et al.	May 2009	A1
20090138014	Bonutti	May 2009	A1
20090143705	Danek et al.	Jun 2009	A1
20090157166	Singhal et al.	Jun 2009	A1
20090163904	Miller et al.	Jun 2009	A1
20090171280	Samuel et al.	Jul 2009	A1
20090177111	Miller et al.	Jul 2009	A1
20090186850	Kiribayashi et al.	Jul 2009	A1
20090192508	Laufer et al.	Jul 2009	A1
20090198231	Esser	Aug 2009	A1
20090228001	Pacey	Sep 2009	A1
20090247933	Maor et al.	Oct 2009	A1
20090248012	Maor et al.	Oct 2009	A1
20090269317	Davalos	Oct 2009	A1
20090275827	Aiken et al.	Nov 2009	A1
20090281477	Mikus et al.	Nov 2009	A1
20090292342	Rubinsky et al.	Nov 2009	A1
20090301480	Elsakka et al.	Dec 2009	A1
20090306544	Ng et al.	Dec 2009	A1
20090306545	Elsakka et al.	Dec 2009	A1
20090318905	Bhargav et al.	Dec 2009	A1
20090326436	Rubinsky et al.	Dec 2009	A1
20090326570	Brown	Dec 2009	A1
20100004623	Hamilton et al.	Jan 2010	A1
20100023004	Francischelli et al.	Jan 2010	A1
20100030211	Davalos et al.	Feb 2010	A1
20100049190	Long et al.	Feb 2010	A1
20100057074	Roman et al.	Mar 2010	A1
20100069921	Miller et al.	Mar 2010	A1
20100087813	Long	Apr 2010	A1
20100130975	Long	May 2010	A1
20100152725	Pearson et al.	Jun 2010	A1
20100160850	Ivorra et al.	Jun 2010	A1
20100168735	Deno et al.	Jul 2010	A1
20100174282	Demarais et al.	Jul 2010	A1
20100179530	Long et al.	Jul 2010	A1
20100196984	Rubinsky et al.	Aug 2010	A1
20100204560	Salahieh et al.	Aug 2010	A1
20100204638	Hobbs et al.	Aug 2010	A1
20100222677	Placek et al.	Sep 2010	A1
20100228247	Paul et al.	Sep 2010	A1
20100241117	Paul et al.	Sep 2010	A1
20100249771	Pearson et al.	Sep 2010	A1
20100250209	Pearson et al.	Sep 2010	A1
20100255795	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2010	A1
20100256628	Pearson et al.	Oct 2010	A1
20100256630	Hamilton, Jr. et al.	Oct 2010	A1
20100261994	Davalos et al.	Oct 2010	A1
20100286690	Paul et al.	Nov 2010	A1
20100298823	Cao et al.	Nov 2010	A1
20100331758	Davalos et al.	Dec 2010	A1
20110017207	Hendricksen et al.	Jan 2011	A1
20110034209	Rubinsky et al.	Feb 2011	A1
20110064671	Bynoe	Mar 2011	A1
20110106221	Neal, II et al.	May 2011	A1
20110112531	Landis et al.	May 2011	A1
20110118727	Fish et al.	May 2011	A1
20110118732	Rubinsky	May 2011	A1
20110130834	Wilson et al.	Jun 2011	A1
20110144524	Fish et al.	Jun 2011	A1
20110144635	Harper et al.	Jun 2011	A1
20110144657	Fish et al.	Jun 2011	A1
20110152678	Aljuri et al.	Jun 2011	A1
20110202053	Moss et al.	Aug 2011	A1
20110217730	Gazit et al.	Sep 2011	A1
20110251607	Kruecker et al.	Oct 2011	A1
20120034131	Rubinsky et al.	Feb 2012	A1
20120059255	Paul et al.	Mar 2012	A1
20120071872	Rubinsky et al.	Mar 2012	A1
20120071874	Davalos et al.	Mar 2012	A1
20120085649	Sano et al.	Apr 2012	A1
20120089009	Omary et al.	Apr 2012	A1
20120090646	Tanaka et al.	Apr 2012	A1
20120095459	Callas et al.	Apr 2012	A1
20120109122	Arena et al.	May 2012	A1
20120130289	Demarais et al.	May 2012	A1
20120150172	Ortiz et al.	Jun 2012	A1
20120165813	Lee et al.	Jun 2012	A1
20120179091	Ivorra et al.	Jul 2012	A1
20120226218	Phillips et al.	Sep 2012	A1
20120226271	Callas et al.	Sep 2012	A1
20120265186	Burger et al.	Oct 2012	A1
20120277741	Davalos et al.	Nov 2012	A1
20120303020	Chornenky et al.	Nov 2012	A1
20120310236	Placek et al.	Dec 2012	A1
20130090646	Moss et al.	Apr 2013	A1
20130108667	Soikum et al.	May 2013	A1
20130110106	Richardson	May 2013	A1
20130184702	Neal, II et al.	Jul 2013	A1
20130196441	Rubinsky et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130197425	Golberg et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130202766	Rubinsky et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130218157	Callas et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130253415	Sano et al.	Sep 2013	A1
20130281968	Davalos et al.	Oct 2013	A1
20130345697	Garcia et al.	Dec 2013	A1
20130345779	Maor et al.	Dec 2013	A1
20140039489	Davalos et al.	Feb 2014	A1
20140046322	Callas et al.	Feb 2014	A1
20140081255	Johnson et al.	Mar 2014	A1
20140088578	Rubinsky et al.	Mar 2014	A1
20140121663	Pearson et al.	May 2014	A1
20140163551	Maor et al.	Jun 2014	A1
20140207133	Model et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140296844	Kevin et al.	Oct 2014	A1
20140309579	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2014	A1
20140378964	Pearson	Dec 2014	A1
20150088120	Garcia et al.	Mar 2015	A1
20150088220	Callas et al.	Mar 2015	A1
20150112333	Chorenky et al.	Apr 2015	A1
20150126922	Willis	May 2015	A1
20150164584	Davalos et al.	Jun 2015	A1
20150173824	Davalos et al.	Jun 2015	A1
20150201996	Rubinsky et al.	Jul 2015	A1
20150265349	Moss et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150289923	Davalos et al.	Oct 2015	A1
20150320488	Moshe et al.	Nov 2015	A1
20150327944	Neal, II	Nov 2015	A1
20160022957	Hobbs et al.	Jan 2016	A1
20160066977	Neal et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160074114	Pearson et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160113708	Moss et al.	Apr 2016	A1
20160143698	Garcia et al.	May 2016	A1
20160235470	Callas et al.	Aug 2016	A1
20160287313	Rubinsky et al.	Oct 2016	A1
20160287314	Arena et al.	Oct 2016	A1
20160338761	Chornenky et al.	Nov 2016	A1
20160354142	Pearson et al.	Dec 2016	A1
20170035501	Chornenky et al.	Feb 2017	A1
20170189579	Davalos	Jul 2017	A1
20170209620	Davalos et al.	Jul 2017	A1
20170266438	Sano	Sep 2017	A1
20170360326	Davalos	Dec 2017	A1
20180125565	Sano et al.	May 2018	A1
20180161086	Davalos et al.	Jun 2018	A1

Foreign Referenced Citations (124)

Number	Date	Country
2002315095	Dec 2002	AU
2003227960	Dec 2003	AU
2005271471	Feb 2006	AU
2006321570	Jun 2007	AU
2006321574	Jun 2007	AU
2006321918	Jun 2007	AU
2297846	Feb 1999	CA
2378110	Feb 2001	CA
2445392	Nov 2002	CA
2458676	Mar 2003	CA
2487284	Dec 2003	CA
2575792	Feb 2006	CA
2631940	Jun 2007	CA
2631946	Jun 2007	CA
2632604	Jun 2007	CA
2751462	Nov 2010	CA
1525839	Sep 2004	CN
101534736	Sep 2009	CN
102238921	Nov 2011	CN
102421386	Apr 2012	CN
863111TR	Jan 1953	DE
4000893TR	Jul 1991	DE
60038026	Feb 2009	DE
0218275	Apr 1987	EP
0339501	Nov 1989	EP
0378132	Jul 1990	EP
0533511	Mar 1993	EP
0998235	May 2000	EP
0528891	Jul 2000	EP
1196550	Apr 2002	EP
1439792	Jul 2004	EP
1442765	Aug 2004	EP
1462065	Sep 2004	EP
1061983	Nov 2004	EP
1493397	Jan 2005	EP
1506039	Feb 2005	EP
0935482	May 2005	EP
1011495	Nov 2005	EP
1796568	Jun 2007	EP
1207797	Feb 2008	EP
1406685	Jun 2008	EP
1424970	Dec 2008	EP
2381829	Nov 2011	EP
2413833	Feb 2012	EP
1791485	Dec 2014	EP
2373241	Jan 2015	EP
1962710	Aug 2015	EP
1962708	Sep 2015	EP
1962945	Apr 2016	EP
2300272	Jun 2008	ES
2315493	Apr 2009	ES
2001510702	Aug 2001	JP
2003505072	Feb 2003	JP
2003506064	Feb 2003	JP
2004203224	Jul 2004	JP
2004525726	Aug 2004	JP
2004303590	Oct 2004	JP
2005501596	Jan 2005	JP
2005526579	Sep 2005	JP
2008508946	Mar 2008	JP
4252316	Apr 2009	JP
2009518130	May 2009	JP
2009518150	May 2009	JP
2009518151	May 2009	JP
2012510332	May 2012	JP
2012521863	Sep 2012	JP
101034682	May 2011	KR
9104014	Apr 1991	WO
9634571	Nov 1996	WO
9639531	Dec 1996	WO
9810745	Mar 1998	WO
9814238	Apr 1998	WO
9901076	Jan 1999	WO
9904710	Feb 1999	WO
0020554	Apr 2000	WO
0107583	Feb 2001	WO
0107584	Feb 2001	WO
0107585	Feb 2001	WO
0110319	Feb 2001	WO
0148153	Jul 2001	WO
2001048153	Jul 2001	WO
0170114	Sep 2001	WO
0181533	Nov 2001	WO
02078527	Oct 2002	WO
02089686	Nov 2002	WO
02100459	Dec 2002	WO
2003020144	Mar 2003	WO
2003047684	Jun 2003	WO
03099382	Dec 2003	WO
2004037341	May 2004	WO
2004080347	Sep 2004	WO
2005065284	Jul 2005	WO
2006017666	Feb 2006	WO
2006031541	Mar 2006	WO
2006130194	Dec 2006	WO
2007067628	Jun 2007	WO
2007067937	Jun 2007	WO
2007067938	Jun 2007	WO
2007067939	Jun 2007	WO
2007067940	Jun 2007	WO
2007067941	Jun 2007	WO
2007067943	Jun 2007	WO
2007070361	Jun 2007	WO
2007123690	Nov 2007	WO
2008063195	May 2008	WO
2009046176	Apr 2009	WO
2007137303	Jul 2009	WO
2009134876	Nov 2009	WO
2009135070	Nov 2009	WO
2009137800	Nov 2009	WO
2010064154	Jun 2010	WO
2010117806	Oct 2010	WO
2010118387	Oct 2010	WO
2010132472	Nov 2010	WO
2010151277	Dec 2010	WO
2011047387	Apr 2011	WO
2011062653	May 2011	WO
2011072221	Jun 2011	WO
2012051433	Apr 2012	WO
2012071526	May 2012	WO
2012088149	Jun 2012	WO
2015175570	Nov 2015	WO
2016100325	Jun 2016	WO
2016164930	Oct 2016	WO

Non-Patent Literature Citations (335)

Entry
Beebe, S.J., et al., “Diverse effects of nanosecond pulsed electric fields on cells and tissues”, DNA and Cell Biology, 22(12): 785-796 (2003).
Chang, D.C., “Cell Poration and Cell-Fusion Using an Oscillating Electric-Field”. Biophysical Journal, 56(4): p. 641-652 (1989).
Chen, M.T., et al., “Two-dimensional nanosecond electric field mapping based on cell electropermeabilization”, PMC Biophys, 2(1):9 (2009).
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/186,653, filed Jun. 20, 2016.
De Vuyst, E., et al., “In situ bipolar Electroporation for localized cell loading with reporter dyes and investigating gap junctional coupling”, Biophysical Journal, 94(2): p. 469-479 (2008).
Esser, A.T., et al., “Towards solid tumor treatment by irreversible electroporation: intrinsic redistribution of fields and currents in tissue”. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 6(4): p. 261-74 (2007).
Esser, A.T., et al., “Towards Solid Tumor Treatment by Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields”. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, 8(4): p. 289-306 (2009).
Freeman, S.A., et al., Theory of Electroporation of Planar Bilayer-Membranes—Predictions of the Aqueous Area, Change in Capacitance, and Pore-Pore Separation. Biophysical Journal, 67(1):p. 42-56 (1994).
Gowrishankar T.R., et al., “Microdosimetry for conventional and supra-electroporation in cells with organelles”. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 341(4): p. 1266-76 (2006).
Kotnik, T. and D. Miklavcic, “Theoretical evaluation of the distributed power dissipation in biological cells exposed to electric fields”, Bioelectromagnetics, 21(5): p. 385-394 (2000).
Kotnik, T., et al., “Cell membrane electropermeabilization by symmetrical bipolar rectangular pulses. Part II. Reduced electrolytic contamination”, Bioelectrochemistry, 54(1): p. 91-5 (2001).
Kotnik, T., et al., “Role of pulse shape in cell membrane electropermeabilization”, Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta—Biomembranes, 1614(2): p. 193-200 (2003).
Lackovic, I., et al., “Three-dimensional Finite-element Analysis of Joule Heating in Electrochemotherapy and in vivo Gene Electrotransfer”, Ieee Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 16(5): p. 1338-1347 (2009).
Long, G., et al., “Targeted Tissue Ablation With Nanosecond Pulses”. Ieee Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 58(8) (2011).
Nikolova, B., et al., “Treatment of Melanoma by Electroporation of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin”. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 25(3): p. 2522-2524 (2011).
Nuccitelli, R., et al., “A new pulsed electric field therapy for melanoma disrupts the tumor's blood supply and causes complete remission without recurrence”, Int J Cancer, 125(2): p. 438-45 (2009).
PCT IPRP for PCT/US15/30429 (WO2015175570), dated Nov. 15, 2016.
Talele, S., et al., “Modelling single cell electroporation with bipolar pulse parameters and dynamic pore radii”. Journal of Electrostatics, 68(3): p. 261-274 (2010).
Vernier, P.T., et al., “Nanoelectropulse-driven membrane perturbation and small molecule permeabilization”, Bmc cell Biology, 7 (2006).
Weaver, J.C., “Electroporation of cells and tissues”, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 28(1): p. 24-33 (2000).
Sabuncu et al., “Dielectrophoretic separation of mouse melanoma clones.” Biomicrofluidics, vol. 4, 7 pages (2010).
Salmanzadeh et al., “Investigating dielectric properties of different stages of syngeneic murine ovarian cancer cells” Biomicrofiuidics 7, 011809 (2013), 12 pages.
Salmanzadeh et al., “Dielectrophoretic differentiation of mouse ovarian surface epithelial cells, macrophages, and fibroblasts using contactless dielectrophoresis.” Biomicrofluidics, vol. 6, 13 Pages (2012).
Salmanzadeh et al., “Sphingolipid Metabolites Modulate Dielectric Characteristics of Cells in a Mouse Ovarian Cancer Progression Model.” Integr. Biol., 5(6), pp. 843-852 (2013).
Sano et al., “Contactless Dielectrophoretic Spectroscopy: Examination of the Dielectric Properties of Cells Found in Blood.” Electrophoresis, 32, pp. 3164-3171, 2011.
Sano et al., “In-vitro bipolar nano- and microsecond electro-pulse bursts for irreversible electroporation therapies.” Bioelectrochemistry vol. 100, pp. 69-79 (2014).
Sano et al., “Modeling and Development of a Low Frequency Contactless Dielectrophoresis (cDEP) Platform to Sort Cancer Cells from Dilute Whole Blood Samples.” Biosensors & Bioelectronics, 8 pages (2011).
Saur et al., “CXCR4 expression increases liver and lung metastasis in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer.” Gastroenterology, vol. 129, pp. 1237-1250 (2005).
Schoenbach et al., “Intracellular effect of ultrashort electrical pulses.” Bioelectromagnetics, 22 (2001) pp. 440-448.
Seibert et al., “Clonal variation of MCF-7 breast cancer cells in vitro and in athymic nude mice.” Cancer Research, vol. 43, pp. 2223-2239 (1983).
Seidler et al., “A Cre-IoxP-based mouse model for conditional somatic gene expression and knockdown in vivo by using avian retroviral vectors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, pp. 10137-10142 (2008).
Szot et al., “3D in vitro bioengineered tumors based on collagen I hydrogels.” Biomaterials vol. 32, pp. 7905-7912 (2011).
Verbridge et al., “Oxygen-Controlled Three-Dimensional Cultures to Analyze Tumor Angiogenesis.” Tissue Engineering, Part A vol. 16, pp. 2133-2141 (2010).
Weaver et al., “A brief overview of electroporation pulse strength-duration space: A region where additional intracellular effects are expected.” Bioelectrochemistry vol. 87, pp. 236-243 (2012).
Yang et al., “Dielectric properties of human leukocyte subpopulations determined by electrorotation as a cell separation criterion.” Biophysical Journal, vol. 76, pp. 3307-3314 (1999).
Yao et al., “Study of transmembrane potentials of inner and outer membranes induced by pulsed-electric-field model and simulation.” IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, 2007. 35(5): p. 1541-1549.
Zhang, Y., et al., MR imaging to assess immediate response to irreversible electroporation for targeted ablation of liver tissues: preclinical feasibility studies in a rodent model. Radiology, 2010. 256(2): p. 424-32.
Baptista et al., “The Use of Whole Organ Decellularization for the Generation of a Vascularized Liver Organoid,” Heptatology, vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 604-617 (2011).
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, filed Apr. 14, 2015 and Published as US 2015/0289923 on Oct. 15, 2015.
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/011,752, filed Feb. 1, 2016.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US15/30429, International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2015, 19 pages.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US2015/030429, Published on Nov. 19, 2015 as WO 2015/175570.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/012,832, Response to Ex Parte Quayle Office Action dated Aug. 28, 2015, filed with RCE on Oct. 28, 2015, 9 pages.
Corovic et al., “Analytical and numerical quantification and comparison of the local electric field in the tissue for different electrode configurations,” Biomed Eng Online, 6, 14 pages, 2007.
Cowley, Good News for Boomers, Newsweek, Dec. 30, 1996/Jan. 6, 1997.
Cox, et al., Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Review, Europace (2004) 5, S20-S-29.
Crowley, Electrical Breakdown of Biomolecular Lipid Membranes as an Electromechanical Instability, Biophysical Journal, vol. 13, pp. 711-724, 1973.
Daud, A.I., et al., “Phase I Trial of Interleukin-12 Plasmid Electroporation in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 5896-5903, Dec. 20, 2008.
Davalos et al., “Electrical impedance tomography for imaging tissue electroporation,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 51, pp. 761-767, 2004.
Davalos et al., “Theoretical analysis of the thermal effects during in vivo tissue electroporation.” Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 61(1-2): pp. 99-107, 2003.
Davalos et al., “Tissue ablation with irreversible electroporation.” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 3(2), pp. 223-231 (2005).
Davalos, et al., A Feasibility Study for Electrical Impedance Tomography as a Means to Monitor T issue Electroporation for Molecular Medicine, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 49, No. 4, Apr. 2002.
Davalos, R. V. & Rubinsky, B. Temperature considerations during irreversible electroporation. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51, 5617-5622, doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2008.04.046 (2008).
Davalos, Real-Time Imaging for Molecular Medicine through Electrical Impedance Tomography of Electroporation, Dissertation for Ph.D. in Engineering—Mechanical Engineering, Graduate Division of University of California, Berkeley, 2002.
Dean, Nonviral Gene Transfer to Skeletal, Smooth, and Cardiac Muscle in Living Animals, Am J. Physiol Cell Physiol 289: 233-245, 2005.
Demirbas, M. F., “Thermal Energy Storage and Phase Change Materials: An Overview” Energy Sources Part B 1(1), 85-95 (2006).
Dev, et al., Medical Applications of Electroporation, IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science, vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 206-223, Feb. 2000.
Dev, et al., Sustained Local Delivery of Heparin to the Rabbit Arterial Wall with an Electroporation Catheter, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, Nov. 1998, vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 337-343.
Duraiswami, et al., Boundary Element Techniques for Efficient 2-D and 3-D Electrical Impedance Tomography, Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 52, No. 13, pp. 2185-2196, 1997.
Duraiswami, et al., Efficient 2D and 3D Electrical Impedance Tomography Using Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Techniques, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 22, (1998) 13-31.
Duraiswami, et al., Solution of Electrical Impedance Tomography Equations Using Boundary Element Methods, Boundary Element Technology XII, 1997, pp. 226-237.
Edd et al., “Mathematical modeling of irreversible electroporation for treatment planning.” Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 275-286 (2007).
Edd, J. et al., In-Vivo Results of a New Focal Tissue Ablation Technique: Irreversible Electroporaton, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 53 (2006) p. 1409-1415.
Ellis TL, Garcia PA, Rossmeisl JH, Jr., Henao-Guerrero N, Robertson J, et al., “Nonthermal irreversible electroporation for intracranial surgical applications. Laboratory investigation”, J Neurosurg 114: 681-688 (2011).
Erez, et al., Controlled Destruction and Temperature Distributions in Biological Tissues Subjected to Monoactive Electrocoagulation, Transactions of the ASME: Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 102, Feb. 1980.
Extended European Search Report, May 11, 2012. PCT/US2009042100 from EP 09739678.2.
Faroja, M., et al., “Irreversible Electroporation Ablation: Is the entire Damage Nonthermal?”, Radiology, 266(2), 462-470 (2013).
Foster RS, “High-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of prostatic disease”, European Urology, 1993, vol. 23 Suppl 1, pp. 29-33.
Foster, R.S., et al., Production of Prostatic Lesions in Canines Using Transrectally Administered High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound. Eur. Urol., 1993; 23: 330-336.
Fox, et al., Sampling Conductivity Images via MCMC, Mathematics Department, Auckland University, New Zealand, May 1997.
Garcia et al., “Irreversible electroporation (IRE) to treat brain cancer.” ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference, Marco Island, FL, Jun. 25-29, 2008, 2 pages.
Garcia et al., “Non-thermal irreversible electroporation (N-TIRE) and adjuvant fractionated radiotherapeutic multimodal therapy for intracranial malignant glioma in a canine patient,” Technol Cancer Res Treat, 10, pp. 73-83, 2011.
Garcia et al., “Towards a Predictive Model of Electroporation-Based Therapies using Pre-Pulse Electrical Measurements” Abstract presented in the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference in Aug. 28, 2012 in San Diego, California, 4 pages.
Garcia P.A., et al., “7.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characterization of Acute Blood-Brain-Barrier Disruption Achieved with Intracranial Irreversible Electroporation”, PLOS One, Nov. 2012, 7:11, e50482.
Garcia P.A., et al., “Pilot study of irreversible electroporation for intracranial surgery”, Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2009:6513-6516, 2009.
Garcia, et al. “A Parametric Study Delineating Irreversible Electroporation from Thermal Damage Based on a Minimally Invasive Intracranial Procedure,” Biomed Eng Online, vol. 10:34, 22 pages, 2011.
Garcia, P. et al. Intracranial nonthermal irreversible electroporation: in vivo analysis. J Membr Biol 236, 127-136 (2010).
Gauger, et al., A Study of Dielectric Membrane Breakdown in the Fucus Egg, J. Membrane Biol., vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 249-264, 1979.
Gehl, et al. In Vivo Electroporation of Skeletal Muscle: Threshold, Efficacy and Relation to Electric Field Distribution, Biochimica et Biphysica Acta 1428, 1999, pp. 233-240.
Gençer, et al., Electrical Impedance Tomography: Induced-Current Imaging Achieved with a Multiple Coil System, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 43, No. 2, Feb. 1996.
Gilbert, et al., Novel Electrode Designs for Electrochemotherapy, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1334, 1997, pp. 9-14.
Gilbert, et al., The Use of Ultrasound Imaging for Monitoring Cryosurgery, Proceedings 6th Annual Conference, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 107-111, 1984.
Gilbert, T. W., et al., “Decellularization of tissues and organs”, Biomaterials, Elsevier Science Publishers, Barking, GB, vol. 27, No. 19, Jul. 1, 2006, pp. 3675-3683.
Glidewell, et al., The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data and the Inclusion of Anisotropic Regions in Electrical Impedance Tomography, Biomed, Sci. Instrum. 1993; 29: 251-7.
Golberg, A. and Rubinsky, B., “A statistical model for multidimensional irreversible electroporation cell death in tissue.” Biomed Eng Online, 9, 13 pages, 2010.
Gothelf, et al., Electrochemotherapy: Results of Cancer Treatment Using Enhanced Delivery of Bleomycin by Electroporation, Cancer Treatment Reviews 2003: 29: 371-387.
Griffiths, et al., A Dual-Frequency Electrical Impedance Tomography System, Phys. Med. Biol., 1989, vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1465-1476.
Griffiths, The Importance of Phase Measurement in Electrical Impedance Tomography, Phys. Med. Biol., 1987, vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 1435-1444.
Griffiths, Tissue Spectroscopy with Electrical Impedance Tomography: Computer Simulations, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 42, No. 9, Sep. 1995.
Gumerov, et al., The Dipole Approximation Method and Its Coupling with the Regular Boundary Element Method for Efficient Electrical Impedance Tomography, Boundary Element Technology XIII, 1999.
Hapala, Breaking the Barrier: Methods for Reversible Permeabilization of Cellular Membranes, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 17(2): 105-122, 1997.
Heller, et al., Clinical Applications of Electrochemotherapy, Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 35, pp. 119-129, 1999.
Hjouj, M., et al., “Electroporation-Induced BBB Disruption and Tissue Damage Depicted by MRI”, Neuro-Oncology 13: Issue suppl 3, abstract ET-32 (2011).
Hjouj, M., et al., “MRI Study on Reversible and Irreversible Electroporation Induced Blood Brain Barrier Disruption”, PLOS One, Aug. 2012, 7:8, e42817.
Ho, et al., Electroporation of Cell Membranes: A Review, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 16(4): 349-362, 1996.
Holder, et al., Assessment and Calibration of a Low-Frequency System for Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT), Optimized for Use in Imaging Brain Function in Ambulant Human Subjects, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, vol. 873, Issue 1, Electrical BI, pp. 512-519, 1999.
Huang, et al., Micro-Electroporation: Improving the Efficiency and Understanding of Electrical Permeabilization of Cells, Biomedical Microdevices, vol. 2, pp. 145-150, 1999.
Hughes, et al., An Analysis of Studies Comparing Electrical Impedance Tomography with X-Ray Videofluoroscopy in the Assessment of Swallowing, Physiol. Meas. 15, 1994, pp. A199-A209.
Issa, et al., The TUNA Procedure for BPH: Review of the Technology: The TUNA Procedure for BPH: Basic Procedure and Clinical Results, Reprinted from Infections in Urology, Jul./Aug. 1998 and Sep./Oct. 1998.
Ivanu{hacek over (s)}a, et al., MRI Macromolecular Contrast Agents as Indicators of Changed Tumor Blood Flow, Radiol. Oncol. 2001; 35(2): 139-47.
J.F. Edd and R.V. Davalos, “Mathematical modeling of irreversible electroporation for treatment planning,” Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, 6, pp. 275-286, 2007.
Jaroszeski, et al., In Vivo Gene Delivery by Electroporation, Advanced Drug Delivery Review, vol. 35, pp. 131-137, 1999.
Jossinet et al., Electrical Impedance Endo-Tomography: Imaging Tissue From Inside, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 21, No. 6, Jun. 2002, pp. 560-565.
Kinosita, et al., Hemolysis of Human Erythrocytes by a Transient Electric Field, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 74, No. 5, pp. 1923-1927, 1977.
Lee, E. W. et al. Advanced Hepatic Ablation Technique for Creating Complete Cell Death : Irreversible Electroporation. Radiology 255, 426-433, doi:10.1148/radiol.10090337 (2010).
Lee, E.W., et al., “Imaging guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation: ultrasound and immunohistological correlation”, Technol Cancer Res Treat 6: 287-294 (2007).
Li, W., et al., “The Effects of Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) on Nerves” PloS One, Apr. 2011, 6(4), e18831.
Liu, et al., Measurement of Pharyngeal Transit Time by Electrical Impedance Tomography, Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas., 1992, vol. 13, Suppl. A, pp. 197-200.
Lundqvist, et al., Altering the Biochemical State of Individual Cultured Cells and Organelles with Ultramicroelectrodes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 95, pp. 10356-10360, Sep. 1998.
Lurquin, Gene Transfer by Electroporation, Molecular Biotechnology, vol. 7, 1997.
Lynn, et al., A New Method for the Generation and Use of Focused Ultrasound in Experimental Biology, The Journal of General Physiology, vol. 26, 179-193, 1942.
M. Marty et al., “Electrochemotherapy—An easy, highly effective and safe treatment of cutaneous and subcutaneous metastases: Results of ESOPE (European Standard Operating Procedures of Electrochemotherapy) study,” European Journal of Cancer Supplements, 4, pp. 3-13, 2006.
Mahmood, F., et al., “Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Verification of Electroporation-Based Treatments”, Journal of Membrane Biology 240: 131-138 (2011).
Mahnic-Kalamiza, et al., “Educational application for visualization and analysis of electric field strength in multiple electrode electroporation,” BMC Med Educ, vol. 12:102, 13 pages, 2012.
Maor et al., The Effect of Irreversible Electroporation on Blood Vessels, Tech. in Cancer Res. and Treatment, vol. 6, No. 4, Aug. 2007, pp. 307-312.
Maor, E., A. Ivorra, and B. Rubinsky, Non Thermal Irreversible Electroporation: Novel Technology for Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Ablation, PLoS One, 2009, 4(3): p. e4757.
Maor, E., A. Ivorra, J. Leor, and B. Rubinsky, Irreversible electroporation attenuates neointimal formation after angioplasty, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, Sep. 2008, 55(9): p. 2268-74.
Miklavcic et al., “A validated model of in vivo electric field distribution in tissues for electrochemotherapy and for DNA electrotransfer for gene therapy,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1523, pp. 73-83, 2000.
Miklav{hacek over (c)}i{hacek over (c)}, et al., The Importance of Electric Field Distribution for Effective in Vivo Electroporation of Tissues, Biophysical Journal, vol. 74, May 1998, pp. 2152-2158.
Miller, L., et al., Cancer cells ablation with irreversible electroporation, Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment 4 (2005) 699-706.
Mir et al., “Mechanisms of Electrochemotherapy” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 35:107-118 (1999).
Mir, et al., Effective Treatment of Cutaneous and Subcutaneous Malignant Tumours by Electrochemotherapy, British Journal of Cancer, vol. 77, No. 12, pp. 2336-2342, 1998.
Mir, et al., Electrochemotherapy Potentiation of Antitumour Effect of Bleomycin by Local Electric Pulses, European Journal of Cancer, vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 68-72, 1991.
Mir, et al., Electrochemotherapy, a Novel Antitumor Treatment: First Clinical Trial, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. III, vol. 313, pp. 613-618, 1991.
Mir, L.M. and Orlowski, S., The basis of electrochemotherapy, in Electrochemotherapy, electrogenetherapy, and transdermal drug delivery: electrically mediated delivery of molecules to cells, M.J. Jaroszeski, R. Heller, R. Gilbert, Editors, 2000, Humana Press, p. 99-118.
Mir, L.M., et al., Electric Pulse-Mediated Gene Delivery to Various Animal Tissues, in Advances in Genetics, Academic Press, 2005, p. 83-114.
Mir, Therapeutic Perspectives of In Vivo Cell Electropermeabilization, Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 53, pp. 1-10, 2000.
Narayan, et al., Establishment and Characterization of a Human Primary Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Cell Line (ND-1), The Journal of Urology, vol. 148, 1600-1604, Nov. 1992.
Naslund, Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Treatments and Transurethral Resection (TURP) in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), (Abstract), Presented at 2001 AUA National Meeting Anaheim, CA, Jun. 5, 2001.
Naslund, Michael J., Transurethral Needle Ablation of the Prostate, Urology, vol. 50, No. 2, Aug. 1997.
Neal II et al., “A Case Report on the Successful Treatment of a Large Soft-Tissue Sarcoma with Irreversible Electroporation,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, pp. 1-6, 2011.
Neal II et al., “Experimental Characterization and Numerical Modeling of Tissue Electrical Conductivity during Pulsed Electric Fields for Irreversible Electroporation Treatment Planning,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 59, pp. 1076-1085, 2012.
Neal II, R. E., et al., “Successful Treatment of a Large Soft Tissue Sarcoma with Irreversible Electroporation”, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29:13, e372-e377 (2011).
Neal II, Robert E. and R.V. Davalos, The Feasibility of Irreversible Electroporation for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Other Heterogeneous Systems, Ann Biomed Eng, 2009, 37(12): p. 2615-2625.
Neumann, et al., Gene Transfer into Mouse Lyoma Cells by Electroporation in High Electric Fields, J. Embo., vol. 1, No. 7, pp. 841-845, 1982.
Neumann, et al., Permeability Changes Induced by Electric Impulses in Vesicular Membranes, J. Membrane Biol., vol. 10, pp. 279-290, 1972.
Okino, et al., Effects of High-Voltage Electrical Impulse and an Anticancer Drug on in Vivo Growing Tumors, Japanese Journal of Cancer Research, vol. 78, pp. 1319-1321, 1987.
Onik, et al., Sonographic Monitoring of Hepatic Cryosurgery in an Experimental Animal Model, AJR American J. of Roentgenology, vol. 144, pp. 1043-1047, May 1985.
Onik, et al., Ultrasonic Characteristics of Frozen Liver, Cryobiology, vol. 21, pp. 321-328, 1984.
Organ, L.W., Electrophysiological principles of radiofrequency lesion making, Apply. Neurophysiol., 1976. 39: p. 69-76.
Ott, H. C., et al., “Perfusion-decellularized matrix: using nature's platform to engineer a bioartificial heart”, Nature Medicine, Nature Publishing Group, New York, NY, US, vol. 14, No. 2, Feb. 1, 2008, pp. 213-221.
Pavselj, et al., “The course of tissue permeabilization studied on a mathematical model of a subcutaneous tumor in small animals,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 52, pp. 1373-1381, 2005.
Phillips, M., Maor, E. & Rubinsky, B. Non-Thermal Irreversible Electroporation for Tissue Decellularization. J. Biomech. Eng, doi:10.1115/1.4001882 (2010).
Piñero, et al., Apoptotic and Necrotic Cell Death Are Both Induced by Electroporation in HL60 Human Promyeloid Leukaemia Cells, Apoptosis, vol. 2, No. 3, 330-336, Aug. 1997.
Precision Office TUNA System, When Patient Satisfaction is Your Goal, VidaMed 2001.
Rajagopal, V. and S.G. Rockson, Coronary restenosis: a review of mechanisms and management, The American Journal of Medicine, 2003, 115(7): p. 547-553.
Rols, M.P., et al., Highly Efficient Transfection of Mammalian Cells by Electric Field Pulses: Application to Large Volumes of Cell Culture by Using a Flow System, Eur. J. Biochem. 1992, 206, pp. 115-121.
Rubinsky, B., “Irreversible Electroporation in Medicine”, Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 6, No. 4, Aug. 1, 2007, pp. 255-259.
Rubinsky, B., ed, Cryosurgery. Annu Rev. Biomed. Eng. vol. 2 2000. 157-187.
Rubinsky, B., et al., “Irreversible Electroporation: A New Ablation Modality—Clinical Implications” Technol. Cancer Res. Treatment 6(1), 37-48 (2007).
Salford, L.G., et al., “A new brain tumour therapy combining bleomycin with in vivo electropermeabilization”, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 194(2): 938-943 (1993).
Sang, M. B., et al., “Towards the creation of decellularized organ constructs using irreversible electroporation and active mechanical perfusion”, Biomedical Engineering Online, Biomed Central LTD, London, GB, vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 10, 2010, p. 83.
Schmukler, Impedance Spectroscopy of Biological Cells, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Engineering Advances: New Opportunities for Biomedical Engineers, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Internal Conference of the IEEE, vol. 1, p. A74, downloaded from IEEE Xplore website, 1994.
Sel, D., Lebar, A. M. & Miklavcic, D. Feasibility of employing model-based optimization of pulse amplitude and electrode distance for effective tumor electropermeabilization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54, 773-781 (2007).
Sel, et al., “Sequential finite element model of tissue electropermeabilization,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 52, pp. 816-827, 2005.
Sersa, et al., Reduced Blood Flow and Oxygenation in SA-1 Tumours after Electrochemotherapy with Cisplatin, British Journal of Cancer, 87, 1047-1054, 2002.
Sersa, et al., Tumour Blood Flow Modifying Effects of Electrochemotherapy: a Potential Vascular Targeted Mechanism, Radiol. Oncol., 37(1): 43-8, 2003.
Sharma, A. , et al., “Review on Thermal Energy Storage with Phase Change Materials and Applications”, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13(2), 318-345 (2009).
Sharma, et al., Poloxamer 188 Decreases Susceptibility of Artificial Lipid Membranes to Electroporation, Biophysical Journal, vol. 71, No. 6, pp. 3229-3241, Dec. 1996.
Shiina, S., et al, Percutaneous ethanol injection therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: results in 146 patients. AJR, 1993, 160: p. 1023-8.
Tekle, Ephrem, R. Dean Astumian, and P. Boon Chock, Electroporation by using bipolar oscillating electric field: An improved method for DNA transfection of NIH 3T3 cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 88, pp. 4230-4234, May 1991, Biochemistry.
Thompson, et al., To determine whether the temperature of 2% lignocaine gel affects the initial discomfort which may be associated with its instillation into the male urethra, BJU International (1999), 84, 1035-1037.
Thomson et al., “Investigation of the safety of irreversible electroporation in humans,” J Vasc Intery Radiol, 22, pp. 611-621, 2011.
TUNA—Suggested Local Anesthesia Guidelines, no date available.
Vidamed, Inc., Transurethral Needle Ablation (TUNA): Highlights from Worldwide Clinical Studies, Vidamed's Office TUNA System, 2001.
Weaver, Electroporation: A General Phenomenon for Manipulating Cells and Tissues, Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 51: 426-435, 1993.
Weaver, et al., Theory of Electroporation: A Review, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, vol. 41, pp. 136-160, 1996.
Weaver, J. C., Electroporation of biological membranes from multicellular to nano scales, IEEE Trns. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 10, 754-768 (2003).
Weisstein: Cassini Ovals. From MathWorld—A. Wolfram Web Resource; Apr. 30, 2010; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/(updated May 18, 2011).
Zimmermann, et al., Dielectric Breakdown of Cell Membranes, Biophysical Journal, vol. 14, No. 11, pp. 881-899, 1974.
Zlotta, et al., Long-Term Evaluation of Transurethral Needle Ablation of the Prostate (TUNA) for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): Clinical Outcome After 5 Years. (Abstract) Presented at 2001 AUA National Meeting, Anaheim, CA—Jun. 5, 2001.
Zlotta, et al., Possible Mechanisms of Action of Transurethral Needle Ablation of the Prostate on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Symptoms: a Neurohistochemical Study, Reprinted from Journal of Urology, vol. 157, No. 3, Mar. 1997, pp. 894-899.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US15/30429, filed May 12, 2015.
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability of Corresponding International Application No. PCT/2011/062067, dated May 28, 2013.
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability of Corresponding International Application No. PCT/2011/066239, dated Jun. 25, 2013.
PCT International Search Report (dated Aug. 2, 2011), Written Opinion (dated Aug. 2, 2011), and International Preliminary Report on Patentability (dated Apr. 17, 2012) of PCT/US10/53077.
PCT International Search Report (dated Aug. 22, 2012), and Written Opinion (dated Aug. 22, 2012) of PCT/US11/66239.
PCT International Search Report (dated Aug. 26, 2005), Written Opinion (dated Aug. 26, 2005), and International Preliminary Report on Patentability (dated Jun. 26, 2006) of PCT/US2004/043477.
PCT International Search Report (dated Jan. 19, 2010), Written Opinion (dated Jan. 19, 2010), and International Preliminary Report on Patentability (dated Jan. 4, 2010) of PCT/US09/62806, 15 pgs.
PCT International Search Report (dated Jul. 15, 2010), Written Opinion (dated Jul. 15, 2010), and International Preliminary Report on Patentability (dated Oct. 11, 2011) from PCT/US2010/030629.
PCT International Search Report (dated Jul. 9, 2009), Written Opinion (dated Jul. 9, 2009), and International Preliminary Report on Patentability (dated Nov. 2, 2010) of PCT/US2009/042100.
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion (dated Jul. 25, 2012) of PCT/US2011/062067.
PCT International Search Report, 4 pgs, (dated Jul. 30, 2010), Written Opinion, 7 pgs, (dated Jul. 30, 2010), and International Preliminary Report on Patentability, 8 pgs, (dated Oct. 4, 2011) from PCT/US2010/029243.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/940,863, filed Nov. 13, 2015 and Published as US 2016/0066977 on Mar. 10, 2016.
Hjouj, Mohammad et al., “Electroporation-Induced BBB Disruption and Tissue Damage Depicted by MRI,” Abstracts from 16th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology in Conjunction with the AANS/CNS Section on Tumors, Nov. 17-20, 2011, Orange County California, Neuro-Oncology Supplement, vol. 13, Supplement 3, p. iii114.
Ivorra et al., “In vivo electric impedance measurements during and after electroporation of rat live.” Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 70, pp. 287-295 (2007).
Ivorra et al., “In vivo electrical conductivity measurements during and after tumor electroporation: conductivity changes reflect the treatment outcome.” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 54, pp. 5949-5963 (2009).
Ivorra, “Bioimpedance monitoring for physicians: an overview.” Biomedical Applications Group, 35 pages (2002).
Laufer et al., “Electrical impedance characterization of normal and cancerous human hepatic tissue.” Physiological Measurement, vol. 31, pp. 995-1009 (2010).
Reber{hacek over (s)}ek, M. and D. Miklav{hacek over (c)}i{hacek over (c)}, “Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Concepts of Electroporation Pulse Generation,” Automatika 52(2011) 1, 12-19.
A.I. Daud et al., “Phase I Trial of Interleukin-12 Plasmid Electroporation in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, pp. 5896-5903, 2008.
Agerholm-Larsen, B., et al., “Preclinical Validation of Electrochemotherapy as an Effective Treatment for Brain Tumors”, Cancer Research 71: 3753-3762 (2011).
Al-Sakere et al., “Tumor ablation with irreversible electroporation,” PLoS One, 2, e1135, 2007, 8 pages.
Amasha, et al., Quantitative Assessment of Impedance Tomography for Temperature Measurements in Microwave Hyperthermia, Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas., 1998, Suppl. A, 49-53.
Andreason, Electroporation as a Technique for the Transfer of Macromolecules into Mammalian Cell Lines, J. Tiss. Cult. Meth., 15:56-62, 1993.
Arena, Christopher B., et al., “Towards the development of latent heat storage electrodes for electroporation-based therapies”, Applied Physics Letters, 101, 083902 (2012).
Arena, Christopher B., et al.,“Phase Change Electrodes for Reducing Joule Heating During Irreversible Electroporation”. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference, SBC2012, Jun. 20-23, 2012, Fajardo, Puerto Rico.
Bagla, S. and Papadouris, D., “Percutaneous Irreversible Electroporation of Surgically Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Case Report” J. Vascular Int. Radiol. 23(1), 142-145 (2012).
Baker, et al., Calcium-Dependent Exocytosis in Bovine Adrenal Medullary Cells with Leaky Plasma Membranes, Nature, vol. 276, pp. 620-622, 1978.
Bancroft, et al., Design of a Flow Perfusion Bioreactor System for Bone Tissue-Engineering Applications, Tissue Engineering, vol. 9, No. 3, 2003, p. 549-554.
Barber, Electrical Impedance Tomography Applied Potential Tomography, Advances in Biomedical Engineering, Beneken and Thevenin, eds., IOS Press, pp. 165-173, 1993.
Beebe, S.J., et al., Nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF) effects on cells and tissues: apoptosis induction and tumor growth inhibition. PPPS-2001 Pulsed Power Plasma Science 2001, 28th IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science and 13th IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference, Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No. 01CH37251). IEEE, Part vol. 1, 2001, pp. 211-215, vol. I, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Ben-David, et al., “Characterization of Irreversible Electroporation Ablation in Vivo Porcine Liver,” Am J Roentgenol, vol. 198, pp. W62-W68, 2012.
Blad, et al., Impedance Spectra of Tumour Tissue in Comparison with Normal Tissue; a Possible Clinical Application for Electrical Impedance Tomography, Physiol. Meas. 17 (1996) A105-A115.
Bolland, F., et al., “Development and characterisation of a full-thickness acellular porcine bladder matrix for tissue engineering”, Biomaterials, Elsevier Science Publishers, Barking, GB, vol. 28, No. 6, Nov. 28, 2006, pp. 1061-1070.
Boone, K., Barber, D. & Brown, B. Review—Imaging with electricity: report of the European Concerted Action on Impedance Tomography. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 21, 201-232 (1997).
BPH Management Strategies: Improving Patient Satisfaction, Urology Times, May 2001, vol. 29, Supplement 1.
Brown, et al., Blood Flow Imaging Using Electrical Impedance Tomography, Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas., 1992, vol. 13, Suppl. A, 175-179.
Brown, S.G., Phototherapy of tumors. World J. Surgery, 1983. 7: p. 700-9.
Cemazar M, Parkins CS, Holder AL, Chaplin DJ, Tozer GM, et al., “Electroporation of human microvascular endothelial cells: evidence for an anti-vascular mechanism of electrochemotherapy”, Br J Cancer 84: 565-570 (2001).
Chandrasekar, et al., Transurethral Needle Ablation of the Prostate (TUNA)—a Propsective Study, Six Year Follow Up, (Abstract), Presented at 2001 National Meeting, Anaheim, CA, Jun. 5, 2001.
Coates, C.W.,et al., “The Electrical Discharge of the Electric Eel, Electrophorous Electricus,” Zoologica, 1937, 22(1), pp. 1-32.
Cook, et al., ACT3: A High-Speed, High-Precision Electrical Impedance Tomograph, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 41, No. 8, Aug. 1994.
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/571,162, filed Oct. 18, 2006 (published as 2007/0043345 on Feb. 22, 2007).
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/432,295, filed Apr. 29, 2009.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/609,779, filed Oct. 30, 2009.
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/751,826, filed Mar. 31, 2010 (published as 2010/0250209 on Sep. 30, 2010).
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/751,854, filed Mar. 31, 2010 (published as 2010/0249771 on Sep. 30, 2010).
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/757,901, filed Apr. 9, 2010.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/906,923, filed Oct. 18, 2010.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US04/43477, filed Dec. 21, 2004.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US09/42100, filed Apr. 29, 2009.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US09/62806, filed Oct. 30, 2009.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US10/30629, filed Apr. 9, 2010.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US10/53077, filed Oct. 18, 2010.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US11/62067, filed Nov. 23, 2011.
Co-Pending Application No. PCT/US11/66239, filed Dec. 20, 2011.
Co-pending Application No. PCT/US2010/029243, filed Mar. 30, 2010, published as WO 2010/117806 on Oct. 14, 2010.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/491,151, filed Jun. 24, 2009.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/332,133, filed Dec. 20, 2011.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, filed Jul. 16, 2012.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/919,640, filed Jun. 17, 2013.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/958,152, filed Aug. 2, 2013.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/989,175, filed May 23, 2013.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/012,832, filed Aug. 28, 2013.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, filed Sep. 3, 2013.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/627,046, filed Feb. 20, 2015.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, filed Apr. 14, 2015.
Co-pending European Application No. 10 824 248.8, Invitation Pursuant to rule 62a(1) EPC (Sep. 25, 2013).
Alberts et al., “Molecular Biology of the Cell,” 3rd edition, Garland Science, New York, 1994, 1 page.
Arena et al. “High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation (H-FIRE) for Non-thermal Ablation without Muscle Contraction.” Biomed. Eng. Online, vol. 10, 20 pages (2011).
Arena, C.B., et al., “A three-dimensional in vitro tumor platform for modeling therapeutic irreversible electroporation.” Biophysical Journal, 2012.103(9): p. 2033-2042.
Asami et al., “Dielectric properties of mouse lymphocytes and erythrocytes.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Molecular Cell Research, 1010 (1989) pp. 49-55.
Ball, C., K.R. Thomson, and H. Kavnoudias, “Irreversible electroporation: a new challenge in “out of-operating theater” anesthesia.” Anesth Analg, 2010. 110(5): p. 1305-9.
Bower et al., “Irreversible electroporation of the pancreas: definitive local therapy without systemic effects.” Journal of surgical oncology, 2011. 104(1): p. 22-28.
Cannon et al., “Safety and early efficacy of irreversible electroporation for hepatic tumors in proximity to vital structures.” Journal of Surgical Oncology, 6 pages (2012).
Carpenter A.E. et al., “CellProfiler: image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell pheotypes.” Genome Biol. 2006; 7(10): R100. Published online Oct. 31, 2006, 11 pages.
Charpentier, K.P., et al., “Irreversible electroporation of the pancreas in swine: a pilot study.” HPB: the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2010. 12(5): p. 348-351.
Chen et al., “Classification of cell types using a microfluidic device for mechanical and electrical measurement on single cells.” Lab on a Chip, vol. 11, pp. 3174-3181 (2011).
Clark et al., “The electrical properties of resting and secreting pancreas.” The Journal of Physiology, vol. 189, pp. 247-260 (1967).
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/808,679, filed Jul. 24, 2015.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/012,832, Ex Parte Quayle Office Action dated Aug. 28, 2015, 6 pages.
Dahl et al., “Nuclear shape, mechanics, and mechanotransduction.” Circulation Research vol. 102, pp. 1307-1318 (2008).
Eppich et al., “Pulsed electric fields for selection of hematopoietic cells and depletion of tumor cell contaminants.” Nature Biotechnology 18, pp. 882-887 (2000).
Ermolina et al., “Study of normal and malignant white blood cells by time domain dielectric spectroscopy.” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 8 (2001) pp. 253-261.
Fischbach et al., “Engineering tumors with 3D scaffolds.” Nat Meth 4, pp. 855-860 (2007).
Flanagan et al., “Unique dielectric properties distinguish stem cells and their differentiated progeny.” Stem Cells, vol. 26, pp. 656-665 (2008).
Fong et al., “Modeling Ewing sarcoma tumors in vitro with 3D scaffolds.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 110, pp. 6500-6505 (2013).
Gascoyne et al., “Membrane changes accompanying the induced differentiation of Friend murine erythroleukemia cells studied by dielectrophoresis.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Biomembranes, vol. 1149, pp. 119-126 (1993).
Gimsa et al., “Dielectric spectroscopy of single human erythrocytes at physiological ionic strength: dispersion of the cytoplasm.” Biophysical Journal, vol. 71, pp. 495-506 (1996).
Helczynska et al., “Hypoxia promotes a dedifferentiated phenotype in ductal breast carcinoma in situ.” Cancer Research, vol. 63, pp. 1441-1444 (2003).
Ibey et al., “Selective cytotoxicity of intense nanosecond-duration electric pulses in mammalian cells.” Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta—General Subjects, vol. 1800, pp. 1210-1219 (2010).
Jarm et al., “Antivascular effects of electrochemotherapy: implications in treatment of bleeding metastases.” Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. vol. 10, pp. 729-746 (2010).
Jensen et al., “Tumor volume in subcutaneous mouse xenografts measured by microCT is more accurate and reproducible than determined by 18FFDG-microPET or external caliper.” BMC medical Imaging vol. 8:16, 9 Pages (2008).
Kingham et al., “Ablation of perivascular hepatic malignant tumors with irreversible electroporation.” Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2012. 215(3), p. 379-387.
Kinosita and Tsong, “Formation and resealing of pores of controlled sizes in human erythrocyte membrane.” Nature, vol. 268 (1977) pp. 438-441.
Kinosita and Tsong, “Voltage-induced pore formation and hemolysis of human erythrocytes.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Biomembranes, 471 (1977) pp. 227-242.
Kinosita et al., “Electroporation of cell membrane visualized under a pulsed-laser fluorescence microscope.” Biophysical Journal, vol. 53, pp. 1015-1019 (1988).
Kirson et al., “Alternating electric fields arrest cell proliferation in animal tumor models and human brain tumors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 104, pp. 10152-10157 (2007).
Kotnik and Miklavcic, “Theoretical evaluation of voltage inducement on internal membranes of biological cells exposed to electric fields.” Biophysical Journal, vol. 90(2), pp. 480-491 (2006).
Labeed et al., “Differences in the biophysical properties of membrane and cytoplasm of apoptotic cells revealed using dielectrophoresis.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—General Subjects, vol. 1760, pp. 922-929 (2006).
Lebar et al., “Inter-pulse interval between rectangular voltage pulses affects electroporation threshold of artificial lipid bilayers.” IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience, vol. 1 (2002) pp. 116-120.
Ma{hacek over (c)}ek Lebar and Miklav{hacek over (c)}i{hacek over (c)}, “Cell electropermeabilization to small molecules in vitro: control by pulse parameters.” Radiology and Oncology, vol. 35(3), pp. 193-202 (2001).
Malpica et al., “Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system.” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 28, pp. 496-504 (2004).
Marszalek et al., “Schwan equation and transmembrane potential induced by alternating electric field.” Biophysical Journal, vol. 58, pp. 1053-1058 (1990).
Martin, n.R.C.G., et al., “Irreversible electroporation therapy in the management of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.” Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2012. 215(3): p. 361-369.
Mulhall et al., “Cancer, pre-cancer and normal oral cells distinguished by dielectrophoresis.” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 401, pp. 2455-2463 (2011).
Neal II, R.E. et al., “Treatment of breast cancer through the application of irreversible electroporation using a novel minimally invasive single needle electrode.” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2010. 123(1): p. 295-301.
Nesin et al., “Manipulation of cell volume and membrane pore comparison following single cell permeabilization with 60- and 600-ns electric pulses.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Biomembranes, vol. 1808, pp. 792-801 (2011).
O'Brien et al., “Investigation of the Alamar Blue (resazurin) fluorescent dye for the assessment of mammalian cell cytotoxicity.” European Journal of Biochemistry, vol. 267, pp. 5421-5426 (2000).
Onik, G. and B. Rubinsky, eds. “Irreversible Electroporation: First Patient Experience Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer. Irreversible Electroporation”, ed. B. Rubinsky 2010, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 235-247.
Onik, G., P. Mikus, and B. Rubinsky, “Irreversible electroporation: implications for prostate ablation.” Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2007. 6(4): p. 295-300.
Paszek et al., “Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype.” Cancer Cell, vol. 8, pp. 241-254 (2005).
Polak et al., “On the Electroporation Thresholds of Lipid Bilayers: Molecular Dynamics Simulation Investigations.” The Journal of Membrane Biology, vol. 246, pp. 843-850 (2013).
Pucihar et al., “Numerical determination of transmembrane voltage induced on irregularly shaped cells.” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 34, pp. 642-652 (2006).
Ron et al., “Cell-based screening for membranal and cytoplasmatic markers using dielectric spectroscopy.” Biophysical chemistry, 135 (2008) pp. 59-68.
Rossmeisl et al., “Pathology of non-thermal irreversible electroporation (N-TIRE)-induced ablation of the canine brain.” Journal of Veterinary Science vol. 14, pp. 433-440 (2013).
Rossmeisl, “New Treatment Modalities for Brain Tumors in Dogs and Cats.” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 44, pp. 1013-1038 (2014).
Rubinsky et al., “Optimal Parameters for the Destruction of Prostate Cancer Using Irreversible Electroporation.” The Journal of Urology, 180 (2008) pp. 2668-2674.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/906,923, File History Jul. 2017, 55 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/808,679, Preliminary Amendment, filed Jul. 27, 2015, 9 pages.
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/011,752 Preliminary Amendment, filed Feb. 2, 2016, 6 pages.
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/423,986, filed Feb. 3, 2017.
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/424,335, filed Feb. 3, 2017.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/310,114, filed Nov. 10, 2016.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/310,114, Preliminary Amendment filed Nov. 10, 2016, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Final Office Action dated Aug. 26, 2016, 12 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Final Office Action dated May 23, 2017, 13 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Final Office Action dated Oct. 23, 2015, 10 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Interview Summary and Misc. Internal Document dated Dec. 23, 2016, 4 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 15, 2015, 10 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 26, 2016, 12 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Response to Aug. 26, 2016 Non-Final Office Action, filed Nov. 28, 2016, 14 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Response to Final Office Action filed Feb. 23, 2016, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Response to May 23, 2017 Final Office Action dated Aug. 23, 2017, 11 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Reponse to Non-Final Office Action filed Jul. 15, 2015, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Response to Restriction Requirement filed Mar. 9, 2015, 3 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Restriction Requirement dated Jan. 7, 2015, 8 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Supplemental Amendment filed Dec. 21, 2016, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Final Office Action dated Aug. 30, 2016, 11 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Final Office Action dated May 1, 2017, 11 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 15, 2016, 8 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 25, 2017, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Non-Final Office Action, dated Sep. 8, 2015, 8 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Priority Petition dated Dec. 11, 2015, 5 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, RCE filed Aug. 1, 2017, 13 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Response to Aug. 30, 2016 Final Office Action, dated Nov. 30, 2016, 10 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Response to Dec. 15, 2016 Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 20, 2017, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Response to Sep. 8, 2015 Non-Final Office Action, dated Mar. 8, 2016, 57 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 22, 2017, 11 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, Response to Jul. 19, 2017 Restriction Requirement, dated Sep. 15, 2017, 2 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, Restriction Requirement dated Jul. 19, 2017, 7 pages.
Garcia, Paulo A., Robert E. Neal II and Rafael V. Davalos, Chapter 3, Non-Thermal Irreversible Electroporation for Tissue Ablation, In: Electroporation in Laboratory and Clinical Investigations ISBN 978-1-61668-327-6 Editors: Enrico P. Spugnini and Alfonso Baldi, 2010, 22 pages.
Wimmer, Thomas, et al., “Planning Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) in the Porcine Kidney: Are Numerical Simulations Reliable for Predicting Empiric Ablation Outcomes?”, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. Feb. 2015 ; 38(1): 182-190. doi:10.1007/s00270-014-0905-2.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/843,888, filed Dec. 15, 2017.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/881,414, filed Jan. 26, 2018.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/550,307, Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 14, 2018, 18 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Response to Oct. 25, 2017 Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 25, 2018, 11 pages.
Neal RE II, et al. (2013) Improved Local and Systemic Anti-Tumor Efficacy for Irreversible Electroporation in Immunocompetent versus Immunodeficient Mice. PLoS One 8(5): e64559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064559.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/940,863, Notice of Allowance dated May 25, 2018, 9 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 15/011,752 Non-Final Office Action dated May 11, 2018, 11 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/017,210, Final Office Action dated Apr. 11, 2018, 10 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, Final Office Action dated May 9, 2018, 14 pages.
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 14/686,380, Response to Nov. 22, 2017 Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 28, 2018, 11 pages.
Kotnik et al., “Sensitivity of transmembrane voltage induced by applied electric fields—A theoretical analysis”, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics,vol. 43, Issue 2, 1997, pp. 285-291.

Related Publications (1)

	Number	Date	Country
	20150088120 A1	Mar 2015	US

Provisional Applications (6)

Number	Date	Country
61694144	Aug 2012	US
61171564	Apr 2009	US
61167997	Apr 2009	US
61075216	Jun 2008	US
61125840	Apr 2008	US
61910655	Dec 2013	US

Continuation in Parts (3)

	Number	Date	Country
Parent	14012832	Aug 2013	US
Child	14558631		US
Parent	12491151	Jun 2009	US
Child	14012832		US
Parent	12432295	Apr 2009	US
Child	12491151		US

System and method for estimating tissue heating of a target ablation zone for electrical-energy based therapies

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

Field of Search

CPC

International Classifications

Term Extension

Abstract

Description

Claims

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

US Referenced Citations (794)

Foreign Referenced Citations (124)

Non-Patent Literature Citations (335)

Related Publications (1)

Provisional Applications (6)

Continuation in Parts (3)