Table 1.

Comparison of the studies

Ref.	IRE placement technique	No. of patients	Age in years	Sex in male/female	Time from diagnosis to treatment in months	Survival time in months	Complications	No. of patients with metastasis	No. of patients who received pre IRE chemo and or radiation	No. of patient who received post IRE chemo and or radiation
Martin et al[38]	Open 52 (96%) lap 2 (4%)	54	Median 61 range 45-80	23 male/21 female	Median 5.1 range 1-32	Local PFS 14, distant PFS 15, and OS 20	32 (59%)	0 (0%)	49 (90%)	40 (73%)
Martin et al[43]	Open 48 (100%)	48	Median 61 range 27-81	26 male/22 female	6 range 4-13	OS 22 and PFS 11	18 (38%)	0 (0%)	33 (69%)	31 (65%)
Paiella et al[39]	Open 10 (100%)	10	Median 66	5 male/5 female	Mean 9.2	OS 7.5	2 (20%)	0 (0%)	10 (100%)	3 (30%)
Narayanan et al[40]	Perc CT guided 14 (100%)	14	Median 57 range 51-72	7 male/7 female	Mean 16.6 range 2.4-49.5	70% OS at 6 mo	2 (14%)	3 (21%)	14 (100%)	NP
Månsson et al[41]	Perc US guided 5 (100%)	5	Median 65 range 46-89	3 male/2 female	NP	40% OS at 6 mo	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (100%)	NP
Bagla et al[44]	Perc US with CT confirm	1	78	Male	CT	Alive at 6 mo	None	None	No	No

IRE: Irreversible electroporation; US: Ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography; NP: Nondeterministic polynomial.