Medical Policy

This document addresses use of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a specific form of tissue ablation to treat malignancies.

Note: For information related to other ablative techniques for cancer treatment, please see:

• CG-SURG-61 Cryosurgical, Radiofrequency, Microwave or Laser Ablation to Treat Solid Tumors Outside the Liver
• CG-SURG-78 Cryosurgical, Radiofrequency, Microwave, or Percutaneous Ethanol Ablation to Treat Solid Tumors in the Liver

Note: For information about IRE for heart arrhythmias (also known as pulsed field ablation [PFA] or pulsed electric field [PEF] therapy), please refer to applicable guidelines used by the plan.

Note: For a high-level overview of this document, please see “Summary for Members and Families” below.

Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

Irreversible electroporation is considered investigational and not medically necessary for ablation of soft tissue or of solid organs including, but not limited to, the liver, pancreas, and prostate.

This document describes clinical studies and expert recommendations, and explains whether irreversible electroporation (IRE) is clinically appropriate. The following summary does not replace the medical necessity criteria or other information in this document. The summary may not contain all of the relevant criteria or information. This summary is not medical advice. Please check with your healthcare provider for any advice about your health.

Key Information

IRE is a treatment that uses short bursts of electricity to destroy cancer cells in soft tissues, such as the liver, pancreas, or prostate. For some purposes, it may be done with a device called the NanoKnife system. IRE aims to target tumor cells while avoiding damage to nearby structures such as blood vessels. However, current research has not clearly shown that IRE improves health outcomes compared to standard treatments. Studies have been small, lacked comparison groups, or had other design issues. Some people have had side effects such as heart rhythm problems, infections, or pain. Because of these limits, IRE is considered investigational and not medically necessary at this time.

What the Studies Show

IRE works by sending electrical pulses into a tumor, creating tiny openings in cells that lead to cell death. It is designed to be precise and to avoid heat damage to nearby tissues. It has been studied for cancers in the liver, pancreas, lung, and prostate, as well as other areas. Some studies show that tumors can shrink or be destroyed in certain people. However, many of these studies are small, do not compare IRE to standard treatments, or include only carefully selected groups of people. This makes it hard to know how well IRE works in general.

Across studies, results have been mixed. Some show moderate tumor control, while others show lower success rates than standard treatments, such as radiofrequency ablation. Survival outcomes are unclear because many people also received chemotherapy or other treatments at the same time. Side effects have included heart rhythm problems, infections, bleeding, urinary symptoms, and pain. In some studies, cancer returned after treatment. Better studies are needed to know if IRE improves health.

Is this clinically appropriate?

IRE is not clinically appropriate because it has not been proven to improve health.

Research studies that address IRE have important limits. Many are small, do not include comparison groups, or include people who were carefully selected. This makes it hard to know if results are due to IRE or other treatments. Some studies show cancer can return after treatment, and others show similar or worse results compared to standard care. In addition, side effects such as heart rhythm problems, infections, and other complications have been reported. Because of these concerns, the benefits and risks are not yet well understood.

(Return to Description/Scope)

Summary

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a nonthermal tissue ablation technique that uses electrical pulses to destroy targeted cells and has been explored as a treatment for various cancers, including those of the liver, pancreas, lung, and prostate. However, current evidence supporting its safety and effectiveness is limited. Most available studies are small, nonrandomized, single-arm, or retrospective, often with methodological weaknesses such as lack of control groups, short follow-up periods, and heterogeneous patient populations. While some studies report promising short-term outcomes or feasibility, results are inconsistent, and complication rates, though often manageable, are not negligible. Importantly, survival and treatment outcomes are frequently confounded by concurrent therapies such as chemotherapy, making it difficult to isolate the true benefit of IRE.

Comparative and higher-quality evidence remains insufficient. Trials comparing IRE to standard treatments (such as thermal ablation or systemic therapy) generally show no clear superiority, and some report lower efficacy or similar complication rates. Meta-analyses suggest potentially favorable outcomes, but these are based on low-quality, heterogeneous data and cannot establish clinical benefit. Studies in prostate cancer suggest that IRE may preserve functional outcomes and delay more aggressive treatments in selected patients, but recurrence rates and residual disease remain concerns, and long-term effectiveness is unclear.

Major clinical guidelines, including from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Urological Association (AUA), and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), do not currently recommend IRE as a standard treatment due to the lack of high-quality evidence. In many cases, it is considered investigational or appropriate only in select or salvage settings. Overall, despite its theoretical advantages and early promising findings, IRE has not yet demonstrated sufficient evidence of safety, efficacy, or comparative benefit to support routine clinical use, and well-designed randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed.

Discussion

The published evidence addressing IRE to date has consisted of studies with limited methodologies and low power. One single-center, prospective, nonrandomized cohort study was performed to investigate the safety of IRE for tumor ablation in 38 humans with advanced malignancy of the liver, kidney, or lung (Thomson, 2011). Transient ventricular arrhythmia occurred in 4 participants, and electrocardiographically (ECG) synchronized delivery was used subsequently in the remaining 30 participants with occurrence of two further arrhythmias (supraventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation). One study participant developed obstruction of the upper ureter after IRE. One adrenal gland was unintentionally directly electroporated, which produced transient severe hypertension. There was no other evidence of adjacent organ damage related to the electroporation. Only 30-day outcomes were reported. Although not a primary aim of this preliminary study, complete target tumor ablation verified by computed tomography (CT) was achieved in 46 of the 69 tumors treated with IRE (66%). Most treatment failures occurred in renal and lung tumors. Biopsy in 3 participants showed coagulative necrosis in the regions treated by IRE. The authors concluded, “IRE appears to be safe for human clinical use provided ECG-synchronized delivery is used. Comparative evaluation with alternative ablative technologies is warranted”.

A prospective, single-arm, phase II clinical trial with a limited study population was conducted at two centers to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IRE as a treatment for lung cancers which failed to meet primary and secondary endpoints. The expected effectiveness was not met at interim analysis, and the trial was stopped prematurely after inclusion of 23 participants (Ricke, 2015).

Verloh (2019) reported the results of a retrospective study involving 164 participants with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with either thermal ablation via microwave or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (n=117) vs. IRE (n=47). In the post-operative period, 17.9% of participants experienced post-ablation syndrome in thermal ablation group vs. 14.9% in the IRE group (p=0.607). No significant differences between groups were reported with regard to the occurrence or the severity of a complication (p=0.864). The primary efficacy endpoint, defined as the percentage of target tumors successfully eradicated by the 6-week follow-up, was 84.3% in the thermal ablation group and 67.2% in the IRE group (no p-value provided). The authors concluded that their results suggest that thermal ablation with microwave or RFA vs. IRE ablation have comparable complication rates. No long-term health outcomes data were provided and lack of statistical data regarding the primary outcome weaken the utility of this study. While the comparative nature of this trial is favorable, the retrospective nature, lack of randomization, lack of blinding and other methodological weaknesses prevents the generalization of these findings.

A prospective trial by Yang (2020) evaluated 74 individuals with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with IRE following induction chemotherapy. A total of 69 procedures (93%) were performed through an open surgical approach, and the remainder used a laparoscopic approach. All individuals received at least 3 months of induction chemotherapy and were required to have no disease progression prior to IRE, reflecting a highly selected population. IRE-related complications occurred in 17.6% of individuals, including Grade III events, with no peri-procedural mortality reported. The progression free survival (PFS) rates in 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years were 69.1%, 48.7%, and 28.8%, respectively, and the overall survival (OS) rates in 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years were 97.2%, 53%, and 31.2%, respectively. Interpretation of these outcomes is limited by the single-arm design and lack of a comparator group. Survival outcomes cannot be attributed to IRE independent of systemic therapy, particularly as multivariate analysis identified chemotherapy regimen (not IRE-related factors) as the only independent predictor of progression-free and overall survival. Additionally, enrollment was restricted to individuals who demonstrated disease stability or response after induction chemotherapy, introducing substantial selection bias and limiting generalizability. While the authors concluded that IRE is safe and associated with encouraging survival in selected individuals, the evidence remains insufficient to determine the incremental benefit of IRE over contemporary systemic therapy alone. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish comparative effectiveness and clarify the risk-benefit profile.

Meijerink (2021) reported the results of the prospective, phase-2, single-arm COLDFIRE-2 trial evaluating the use of IRE in 51 individuals with colorectal cancer liver metastases 5.0 cm or smaller that were unsuitable for surgical resection, thermal ablation, or further systemic therapy. Percutaneous IRE was conducted in 39 participants, 14 of whom underwent concurrent thermal ablation. Open IRE was conducted in 12 participants, 1 of which underwent additional surgery, 3 of which underwent concurrent thermal ablation, and 6 underwent concurrent thermal ablation and surgery. Participants were followed for 12 months after the initial IRE. Retreatment with IRE was reported in 8 participants, 6 with local tumor progression of a previously IRE-treated tumor and 2 with new tumors. Cases with recurrence of disease were treated with repeat IRE (n=12), thermal ablation (n=3), stereotactic body radiation therapy (n=3), or selective internal radiation therapy (n=1). Concomitant treatment with systemic therapy for disease progression was reported in 25 participants during the follow-up period. Overall, 76 tumors were treated with IRE, including repeat treatment and new metastases. Adverse events were reported in 23 participants with a total of 34 total events, resulting in a 40% overall complication rate. Reported events included infection (n=5), pneumothorax (n=3), periprocedural cardiac arrythmia (n=4), portal vein thrombosis (n=3) and biliary obstruction (n=3). At 1 year, 34 of the 50 participants (68%) were alive without long term progression. The per-tumor 1-year long term progression free survival rate was 79%. Median distant progression free survival was 5.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5, 8.1). The most frequent site of first recurrence was the liver. Following repeat procedures, local tumor control was eventually achieved in 74% of participants. The authors reported that the hazard ratio (HR) for long term progression was 2.5 (p=0.03) for participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score greater than 2, and 3.6 (p=0.004) for primary rectal tumors. Interpretation of these findings is limited by the single-arm design, lack of a comparator group, and reliance on an arbitrarily defined efficacy threshold. The frequent use of concurrent and subsequent therapies, including repeat IRE and other locoregional or systemic treatments, confounds attribution of outcomes to IRE. Additional limitations include small sample size, heterogeneous and heavily pretreated population, absence of multivariable adjustment, and potential operator-dependent effects. The relatively high complication rate further limits confidence in the safety profile. Overall, this study provides preliminary evidence of feasibility in a salvage population but does not establish the comparative effectiveness or net clinical benefit of IRE relative to standard treatment approaches.

Freeman (2021) reported a comparative trial involving the use of IRE in 18 participants (25 tumors) compared to 81 propensity-matched participants (149 tumors) who underwent RFA for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. In total, 190 ablations took place (n=31 IRE and n=159 RFA). All but 2 of the procedures were conducted by a single surgeon. Median follow-up time was 19.4 months in the IRE group vs. 13.2 months in the RFA group. At baseline, the RFA cohort had significantly worse liver function with regard to MELD scores (7 vs. 10, p<0.001) and Child Pugh Grade (88% vs 58.8% Grade A, p=0.02). Two (8%) of the IRE lesions and 4 (2.7%) of the RFA lesions required a second ablation in order to achieve complete remission (CR, p=0.18). After propensity score matching, a total of 121 lesions (25 IRE and 96 RFA) were analyzed for local recurrence free survival (LRFS), and rate was similar between groups (40% IRE lesions vs. 28% RFA lesions, p=0.25). No significant differences between groups were noted with regard to LRFS after adjusting for MELD scores using Cox regression (HR, 1.14; p=0.71). Similarly, no differences between groups were reported when lesion size was taken into consideration (< 3 cm, p=0.79 or < 2 cm, p=0.99). There were no major procedure-related complications or deaths in either group. Pain was reported in 36.8% of IRE participants. Acute kidney injury, transient urinary retention and a small subcapsular hematoma secondary to needle insertion sites each occurred in single participants. In the RFA group, pain was documented in 7.5% of participants and single cases each of transient urinary retention, lower respiratory tract infection and minor bleeding were managed conservatively. The retrospective nature of this trial, lack of blinding or controls, conduct in a single treating center, as well as the low number of IRE participants limit the generalizability of these findings.

In 2021, two meta-analyses were published addressing the use of IRE for the treatment of liver tumors. Yu and colleagues included 26 studies (807 participants and 1115 lesions) and reported a pooled complete ablation rate of 86% and an overall complication rate of 23% with most adverse events characterized as minor. Gupta and colleagues analyzed 25 studies (n=776, 15 prospective, 10 retrospective) and reported pooled overall survival rates of 93.28%, 81.29%, 61.47%, and 40.88%, at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively.  The pooled progression-free survival at 6, 12, and 24 months was 79.72%, 64.19%, and 49.05% respectively. The overall complication rate was reported to be 23.7%, with major complications occurring in 6.9% of participants. These findings must be interpreted with caution. Both analyses are based predominantly on small, nonrandomized, heterogeneous studies with variable populations (including primary and metastatic tumors), inconsistent outcome definitions, and substantial statistical heterogeneity (for example, I² values exceeding 50% for several outcomes in Gupta’s analysis) . Additionally, the absence of controlled comparisons limits conclusions regarding relative efficacy compared to established therapies. As such, while pooled outcomes appear favorable, they represent low-quality evidence subject to bias, and do not establish clinical benefit. Larger, well-designed comparative trials are needed to determine the role of IRE in the management of liver tumors.

Additional case series studies and small trials of IRE use in locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) and liver tumors have been published (Ansari, 2017; Bhutiani, 2016; Bujis, 2021; Distelmaier, 2017; Dollinger, 2015; Hosein, 2014; Kalra, 2019; Langan, 2017; Lyu, 2017; Mafeld, 2019; Niessen 2016 and 2017; Scheffer, 2017; Schicho, 2018; Stillström, 2019; Sutter, 2017; Tasu, 2017; Tasu, 2024; Timmer, 2024; Wah, 2021). While favorable results have been almost uniformly reported, the data from these studies is hampered by weak methodology and low power. Data from well-designed and conducted trials with long term follow-up is needed to fully assess the health outcomes resulting from IRE.

In 2022, Sugumar and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis of multimodal therapy with or without IRE for unresectable LAPC. A total of 48 studies were included for IRE (n=27) and without IRE (n=21) with data for 1420 (IRE) and 1348 (without IRE) individuals. Most of the included studies of IRE had small sample sizes and lacked a comparison arm. IRE was associated with similar survival outcomes compared to chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. Nevertheless, nearly 75% of the participants progressed and nearly half died within 1 year of the IRE procedure compared to 70% progression and 20% death in the chemotherapy group. The authors noted that:

There exists a striking paucity in studies directly comparing outcomes between IRE and standard of care CT [chemotherapy] in LAPC.” Furthermore, they concluded that “Given the lack of quality prospective data, IRE should remain experimental and be used with caution in LAPC.

Other available publications addressing IRE include small retrospective chart reviews and prospective pilot studies addressing treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and tumors of the pancreas, liver, and bile ducts (Belfiore, 2020; Cannon, 2013; Djokic, 2021; Franken, 2022; Guo, 2021; Hsiao, 2020; Kingham, 2012; Kwon, 2021; Lyons, 2021; Månsson, 2020; Martin, 2012 and 2018; Moir, 2014). Some of these studies have reported limited short-term improvements with high rates of adverse events and trends toward recurrence in larger tumors (over 4 cm) also noted.

Blazevski (2021) described the results of IRE treatment of 50 participants with distal apical prostate cancer followed for at least 1 year post treatment. All procedures were conducted by a single surgeon. Median follow-up was 44 months. Forty-three participants (86%) had intermediate-risk disease, 5 (10%) had low-risk disease and 2 (4%) had high-risk disease. With regard to adverse events, 10 participants (20%) experienced dysuria, urgency, hematuria, and perineal pain. Nine participants (18%) experienced complications including urinary tract infections, severe urgency/frequency or incontinence (Clavien-Dindo 2). Results of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) quality of life tool (QoL) were reported. The results indicated no statistically significant difference in urinary QoL at baseline and 12 months post-treatment (p=0.063). All participants were dry at baseline, and none required leak protection pads at 24 months after treatment. However, 2 participants (4%) required one pad at 3 months and only 1 (2%) required one pad at 12 months. No significant difference was observed in the bowel QoL domain between baseline and 12 months (p=0.066) and no rectal injuries or fistulae were reported. Results on the sexual QoL domain at baseline vs. 12 months indicated a significant decrease in sexual function, with 94% of participants retaining sufficient function to engage in sexual intercourse post-IRE (p=0.001). No significant differences were reported with regard to urinary incontinence (p=0.439), urinary leakage (p=0.642), and erections sufficient for intercourse (p=0.894) post-treatment when the investigators compared treatment in the anterior vs. posterior segments of the prostate. Median PSA at 12 months decreased by 71% to 1.7 ng/mL. In-field recurrence at 12 months was reported in only 1 subject (2.5%). Out-of-field recurrence occurred in 8 (20%) participants. Overall, 78% of participants were free of significant disease after initial IRE and in participants with greater than 3-year follow-up (n=40), the failure free survival at 3 years was 90%. The authors concluded that IRE for prostate cancer in the “distal apex appears safe and feasible with acceptable early QoL and oncologic outcomes.” However, several methodological issues limit the generalizability of these findings, including the use of retrospective data, lack of a control group or blinding, and performance of all procedures by a single surgeon.

In 2022, Wang and colleagues reported the results of a single-group, nonrandomized trial of extended focal ablation of localized prostate cancer using high-frequency IRE (H-FIRE). A total of 109 individuals with low or intermediate risk of biochemical recurrence of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer received H-FIRE. The primary outcome measurement was clinically significant prostate cancer at 6 months following treatment. Among the 100 participants who underwent biopsy at 6 months, the prostate cancer rate was 6.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-12.6%; p<0.001), which was superior to the rate of 20% observed in historical controls treated with thermal energy methods. The rate of complications in the H-FIRE group was low and only 9.0% of the participants had emergent sexual dysfunction. The authors concluded that the results of this study were encouraging in terms of efficacy and minimal effect on functional outcomes. However, they acknowledge that the sample size was relatively small and that “a major limitation of the current study was the use of a historical control rather than including a parallel control group.”

Miñana López and colleagues (2023) published results of a single-center, phase II study of focal therapy of prostate cancer using IRE. This was a small study of 41 individuals with a median follow-up of 36 months. Recurrence was observed in 16 of 41 (39%) of the cohort. Recurrence in the treatment field was detected in 5 (15%) and out-of-field in 11 (33.3%). Complications were few with all participants having preserved urinary continence; potency was maintained in 91.8%. The authors concluded that treatment with IRE could delay radical treatments of participants on active surveillance, however the risk of recurrence over time is a concern. This study is limited by lack of blinding or controls, conduct in a single treating center, as well as the low number of participants.

In 2023, Scheltema and colleagues reported median 5-year outcomes (with follow up extending to 10 years) of primary focal IRE for localized prostate cancer in a prospective, single-center cohort of 229 individuals, the majority of whom had intermediate-risk disease. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 60 (40-80) months. Progression to radical treatment occurred in 17% (38/229) at a median (IQR) of 35 (17-53) months. Kaplan-Meier estimates of failure-free survival (defined as absence of radical treatment or nodal/distant disease) were 91% at 3 years, 84% at 5 years and 69% at 8 years. Metastasis-free and disease-specific survival were reported as 99.6% and 100%, respectively. Residual clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 24% (45/190) during follow-up biopsy while MRI showed a complete ablation in 82% (186/226), highlighting discordance between imaging and histologic outcomes. While these results suggest that focal IRE may delay or avoid radical treatment in a subset of individuals, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The study is limited by its single-arm design without a comparator, lack of randomization or blinding, and conduct at a single high-volume center, which may limit generalizability. Outcome definitions such as “failure-free survival” incorporate treatment decisions rather than strictly oncologic endpoints and may overestimate disease control. Additionally, incomplete biopsy follow-up and reliance on MRI, which has limited sensitivity for residual disease in this setting, introduce potential ascertainment bias. Overall, the evidence remains insufficient to establish durable oncologic equivalence to standard treatments, and confirmation in comparative, well-controlled studies is needed.

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, 2-arm intervention study was published evaluating the results of IRE using the NanoKnife system for the ablation of localized prostate cancer (de la Rosette, 2023; Zhang, 2023). A total of 106 individuals were randomized into two IRE treatment groups, one in which participants underwent focal IRE at the site of the tumor and one in which participants underwent extended ablation of a larger area surrounding the tumor. The focal ablation group had better International Index of Erectile Function scores at 3 months post IRE, but from 6 months onward there was no significant difference in sexual function between the 2 groups. At 6 months post-treatment, the rate of residual clinically significant prostate cancer based on biopsy results was 18.8% and 13.2% in the focal and extended IRE groups, respectively, although the difference was not significant. Limitations of this study include a small sample size such that the study might not be adequately powered to detect small differences between the 2 groups. Since all participants received IRE treatment, the study results do not allow a comparison of IRE to more established prostate cancer treatments. In addition, longer term follow-up of recurrence rates and oncologic results is needed.

Zhang and colleagues (2024) published results of a multicenter, international, prospective, observational study to evaluate the safety, functional and oncological outcomes of IRE for the ablation of localized prostate cancer (n=411). The median follow-up duration was 24 months (IQR 15-36). Among the 116 individuals (28.2%) who underwent repeat biopsy at 12-18 months, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 24.1% (28/116), and any grade prostate cancers were found in 59.5% (69/116). The rate of adverse events was low, 1.8% at 3 months after IRE and then dropped to less than 1% at 6 months and remained stable thereafter. Transient declines in urinary and erectile function were observed at 3 months, with urinary symptoms returning to baseline by 6 months, while erectile function remained reduced but stable over time. The authors concluded that oncological control achieved in this study was reasonable. While these findings suggest acceptable short-term safety and functional outcomes with modest early oncologic control, interpretation is limited by the observational design, absence of a comparator group, and short follow-up. Importantly, outcome assessment is substantially biased by incomplete ascertainment, as fewer than one-third of treated individuals underwent protocol-recommended repeat biopsy, and biopsy targeting could not reliably distinguish in-field from out-of-field recurrence. Additional limitations include heterogeneity in imaging and follow-up practices and lack of standardized treatment delivery across centers. Overall, the evidence remains insufficient to establish durable oncologic efficacy, and longer-term, controlled studies with complete follow-up are needed.

In 2026, George and colleagues reported results of the PRESERVE trial, a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, single-arm trial evaluating IRE with the NanoKnife system to ablate prostate tissue in 121 individuals with intermediate-risk, organ-confined prostate cancer. The coprimary endpoints were the rate of local pathological complete response (negative in-field biopsy) and the incidence, type, and severity of adverse events at 12 months of follow-up. Results showed that the negative in-field biopsy rate at 12 months was 71% (95% CI: 62%-79%). Using a less stringent Delphi consensus definition (absence of clinically significant disease), this rate increased to 84%. However, residual or recurrent disease remained common, with clinically significant prostate cancer identified in 26% of individuals overall and positive out-of-field biopsies observed in 36% at 12 months. Adverse events were reported in 86% (95% CI: 78%-92%), but most were grade 1 or 2 and transient, for example hematuria and dysuria. Fourteen (12%) individuals experienced more serious AEs including abdominal pain, urinary retention, and rectourethral fistula. Functional outcomes were generally preserved, with high rates of pad-free continence and maintenance of erectile function in most individuals at 12 months, though some decline in erectile function scores was observed. A major limitation of this study is the absence of a control arm such that IRE results cannot be compared to more established prostate cancer treatments. Other limitations to interpreting these findings are its single-arm design, absence of a comparator group, and short follow-up duration, precluding assessment of long-term oncologic control relative to established treatments. Further methodological limitations include lack of central pathology and imaging review, potential variability across sites (including inclusion of centers early in their learning curve), and industry funding with multiple investigator financial conflicts, which may introduce bias. Furthermore, the relatively high rate of residual in-field and out-of-field disease raises concerns regarding the completeness of tumor control and challenges in patient selection and treatment targeting.

Overall, while the study demonstrates feasibility and favorable short-term functional outcomes, the evidence remains insufficient to establish IRE as an effective alternative to standard definitive therapies for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Longer-term, controlled comparative studies are needed to determine its impact on clinically meaningful oncologic outcomes.

The AUA and the ASTRO published a guideline concerning risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management of clinical localized prostate cancer (Eastham, 2022). The guideline notes that because existing studies have been largely non-randomized, with non-standardized protocols and insufficient follow-up, the role of ablative therapy in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer remains to be defined. Although ablation may be considered in select individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, individuals should be counseled regarding side effects and recurrence risk:

Clinicians should inform patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer considering whole gland or focal ablation that there are a lack of high-quality data comparing ablation outcomes to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance.

The NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology^™ for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (V1.2026) note that “due to concerns about complications and technical expertise, the panel does not currently recommend IRE for treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.” Similarly, the NCCN guideline for hepatocellular carcinoma (V1.2026) states, “Recurrences have been reported following IRE for larger tumors. Larger studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of IRE for local HCC treatment.” Regarding prostate cancer, the NCCN guideline (V5.2026) states that IRE may be a local therapy option for individuals with recurrence after definitive radiotherapy (RT), a category 2B recommendation. The guideline notes that “At this time, the only local therapy options that can be considered are cryotherapy, HIFU, and IRE (category 2B) in the setting of non-metastatic RT recurrence due to the overall lack of high-quality evidence in this setting for any modality.”

The NCCN Soft Tissue Sarcoma Guidelines (V3.2026) describe tumor ablation, including both thermal and non-thermal modalities (such as irreversible electroporation [IRE]), as potential treatment options in selected clinical circumstances. Ablation modality selection should be individualized based on tumor characteristics (for example, size, location, and proximity to critical structures) and institutional expertise. The guidelines indicate that individuals with unresectable metastases, those who are not surgical candidates, or those with disease progression despite conventional therapies may be considered for image-guided ablation. Ablation may also be used for local tumor control in oligometastatic disease and for palliation of pain in individuals with musculoskeletal metastases. However, the guideline does not provide specific recommendations or preferential endorsement for IRE relative to other ablation modalities and does not cite any studies relating to the use of IRE to treat soft tissue sarcomas.

The use of IRE in combination with chemotherapy, also referred to as electrochemotherapy (ECT), has been reported in several studies. One retrospective study (He, 2020) described the results in 132 participants with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy plus IRE (n=36) vs. chemotherapy alone (n=96). Due to significant differences between groups at baseline, 36 pairs of participants were obtained from the study population after propensity score matching (PSM). Participants who received chemotherapy combined with IRE treatment had significantly higher cumulative 1-year and 2-year OS rates than participants who received chemotherapy alone (p<0.001). After the PSM analysis the 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 89.8% and 77.2% in the chemotherapy plus IRE group, respectively, and 18.1% and 18.1% in the chemotherapy group, respectively (p<0.001). Median PFS was 7.1 months in the chemotherapy plus IRE group and 4.9 months in the chemotherapy group after the finish of induction therapy (p<0.001). Similar results were reported after PSM (p<0.001). Participants in the chemotherapy group were 4.45 times more likely to have decreased PFS than participants in the chemotherapy plus IRE group. Two cases with pancreatic fistula and one case of biliary fistula were observed in the IRE group, with no intra-abdominal hemorrhage in participants after IRE therapy. Larger, prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm this study’s results.

Edhemovic (2020) reported a prospective phase II study of ECT in 39 participants with 84 metachronous colorectal liver metastases. ECT was performed during open surgery using bleomycin administered intravenously and electrodes having fixed geometry (59 metastases) or variable geometry (25 metastases). The procedure was feasible and safe in all participants, with no immediate or delayed IRE-related adverse events reported. According to the mRECIST criteria, objective response rate (ORR) was 75% for the 84 treated metastases (23% partial response). The median follow-up was 330 days. The response per subject was 44.0% complete response (CR), 15.0% PR, 2.5% stable disease (SD), and 38.5% progressive disease (PD). In participants who had two or more metastases treated, a lower complete response rate per subject was observed (44.0%) due to the partial or lack of response of some metastases. The response of smaller metastases (up to 3 cm in diameter) was significantly better compared to the larger metastases (larger than 3 cm; p<0.035). No differences in response were noted in participants with peripheral vs. centrally located tumors. Participants with a good response to IRE also had significantly slower progression locally or systemically (p<0.0016) than participants with progressive disease. These results are promising, but investigation in a larger, more generalizable population is needed.

In 2022, several systematic reviews were published analyzing the use of ECT for skin cancer. Bastrup and colleagues evaluated 55 clinical studies (n=3729 participants) investigating ECT with intravenous bleomycin for individuals with cutaneous malignancies. The mean ORR was 81.5% with the standard dose of bleomycin while studies using lower doses of bleomycin observed a similar ORR (85.5%), suggesting that a lower dose may not be inferior. Ferioli and colleagues performed a systematic review of the efficacy and toxicity of ECT in the setting of skin metastases from malignant melanoma (MM). Altogether, 18 studies with 529 individuals were included in the analysis. Most studies used bleomycin as the chemotherapy drug but 2 used cisplatin and 1 study used both drugs. The pooled ORR was 80.6% and 1-year OS was 67-86.2%. Similar results were obtained by Petrelli and colleagues who conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature (27 studies; 1161 individuals) to evaluate the use of ECT with bleomycin or cisplatin in MM. One-year OS rates were 67-89% compared to 67-86% in the Ferioli study. In general, these studies concluded that ECT for MM yields favorable oncologic outcomes. However, there was significant heterogeneity between the studies included in these analyses based on different drugs, with different doses and routes of administration (intravenous vs. intratumoral), and variations in tumor size. In addition, some of the studies included were retrospective. It was also concluded that given the promising results, further prospective randomized studies with larger cohorts of participants are warranted to be able to standardize the use of ECT in clinical practice.

There is currently inadequate evidence in the published literature to support the safety and efficacy of IRE or to demonstrate how treatment with this technology will impact clinical outcomes for any malignancies.

IRE is a low energy, direct current, nonthermal ablative device system for use in performing minimally invasive procedures intended for the destruction of soft tissues. The procedure is done with the use of the NanoKnife Oncobionic System, which received initial clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 21, 2006 as a tissue ablation system indicated for surgical ablation of soft tissue, including cardiac and smooth muscle (FDA, 2006). Subsequent FDA clearance clarified the indications, “For the surgical ablation of soft tissue” (FDA, 2008). The NanoKnife System is classified by the FDA as an electrosurgical cutting and coagulation device (FDA, 2011).

Use of the NanoKnife Oncobionic System involves the process of using brief and controlled high voltage electric pulses to open microscopic pores in a targeted area. By increasing the number, strength, and duration of electric pulses, electroporation can be made permanent or irreversible. It is purported by the manufacturer that IRE technology allows for extreme precision in targeting soft-tissue cells of interest while blood vessels and other sensitive structures in the area remain functional.

On January 21, 2011 the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a warning letter to the manufacturer, AngioDynamics, Inc. regarding the NanoKnife Oncobionic System branding and labeling indications listed on the manufacturer’s website. The FDA requested that the words, “treat,” “treatment,” and “therapy” be removed and replaced with the word “ablation” throughout the labeling for the device, since the FDA clearance is not for any specific disease or condition. The FDA also requested that a precise definition of “Irreversible Electroporation or IRE” be provided, since this term was not part of the initial FDA application (FDA, 2011). The information currently available on the FDA web site for the NanoKnife refers to IRE device as, “A low energy, direct current, non-thermal ablation device” (FDA, 2019).

Electroporation: The process of using brief and controlled electric pulses to open microscopic pores in a targeted area. By increasing the number, strength, and duration of electric pulses, electroporation can be made permanent or irreversible (IRE). After IRE, the pores in the cells remain open permanently with resultant microscopic damage to cells.

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this document are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.

When services are Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

Peer Reviewed Publications:

1. Ansari D, Kristoffersson S, Andersson R, Bergenfeldt M. The role of irreversible electroporation (IRE) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 52(11):1165-1171.
2. Ball C, Thomson KR, Kavnoudias H. Irreversible electroporation: a new challenge in "out of operating theater" anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2010; 110(5):1305-1309.
3. Bastrup FA, Vissing M, Gehl J. Electrochemotherapy with intravenous bleomycin for patients with cutaneous malignancies, across tumour histology: a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2022; 61(9):1093-1104.
4. Belfiore MP, Ronza FM, Romano F, et al. Percutaneous CT-guided irreversible electroporation followed by chemotherapy as a novel neoadjuvant protocol in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: our preliminary experience. Int J Surg. 2015; 21(Suppl 1):S34-39.
5. Belfiore MP, Reginelli A, Maggialetti N, et al. Preliminary results in unresectable cholangiocarcinoma treated by CT percutaneous irreversible electroporation: feasibility, safety and efficacy. Med Oncol. 2020; 37(5):45.
6. Bhutiani N, Philips P, Scoggins CR, et al. Evaluation of tolerability and efficacy of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in treatment of Child-Pugh B (7/8) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HPB (Oxford). 2016; 18(7):593-599.
7. Blazevski A, Amin A, Scheltema MJ, et al. Focal ablation of apical prostate cancer lesions with irreversible electroporation (IRE). World J Urol. 2021; 39(4):1107-1114.
8. Buijs M, de Bruin DM, Wagstaff PG, et al. MRI and CT in the follow-up after irreversible electroporation of small renal masses. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2021; 27(5):654-663.
9. Cannon R, Ellis S, Hayes D, et al. Safety and early efficacy of irreversible electroporation for hepatic tumors in proximity to vital structures. J Surg Oncol. 2013; 107(5):544-549.
10. de la Rosette J, Dominguez-Escrig J, Zhang K, et al. A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, 2-arm intervention study evaluating the adverse events and quality of life after irreversible electroporation for the ablation of localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2023; 209(2):347-353.
11. Distelmaier M, Barabasch A, Heil P, et al. Midterm safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation of malignant liver tumors located close to major portal or hepatic veins. Radiology. 2017; 285(3):1023-1031.
12. Djokic M, Cemazar M, Popovic P, et al. Electrochemotherapy as treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma, a prospective pilot study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44(5):651-657.
13. Dollinger M, Beyer LP, Haimerl M, et al. Adverse effects of irreversible electroporation of malignant liver tumors under CT fluoroscopic guidance: a single-center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015; 21(6):471-475.
14. Edhemovic I, Brecelj E, Cemazar M, et al. Intraoperative electrochemotherapy of colorectal liver metastases: a prospective phase II study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020; 46(9):1628-1633.
15. Ferioli M, Lancellotta V, Perrone AM, et al. Electrochemotherapy of skin metastases from malignant melanoma: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2022; 39(5):743-755.
16. Franken LC, van Veldhuisen E, Ruarus AH, et al. Outcomes of irreversible electroporation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a prospective pilot study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022; 33(7):805-813.
17. Freeman E, Cheung W, Ferdousi S, et al. Irreversible electroporation versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single centre propensity-matched comparison. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021; 56(8):942-947.
18. Frühling P, Nilsson A, Duraj F, et al. Single-center nonrandomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation (IRE) ablation of liver tumors in humans: Short to mid-term results. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43(4):751-757.
19. George AK, Miocinovic R, Patel AR, et al. Irreversible electroporation for prostate tissue ablation in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results from the PRESERVE Trial. Eur Urol. 2026; 89(1):57-68.
20. Gomez FM, Patel PA, Stuart S, Roebuck DJ. Systematic review of ablation techniques for the treatment of malignant or aggressive benign lesions in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2014; 44(10):1281-1289.
21. Guo X, Du F, Liu Q, et al. Immunological effect of irreversible electroporation on hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2021; 21(1):443.
22. Gupta P, Maralakunte M, Sagar S, et al. Efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation for malignant liver tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(9):6511-6521.
23. He C, Wang J, Zhang Y, Lin X, Li S. Irreversible electroporation after induction chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Pancreatology. 2020; 20(3):477-484.
24. Hosein PJ, Echenique A, Loaiza-Bonilla A, et al. Percutaneous irreversible electroporation for the treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastases with a proposal for a new response evaluation system. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25(8):1233-1239.e2.
25. Hsiao CY, Yang PC, Li X, Huang KW. Clinical impact of irreversible electroporation ablation for unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):10883.
26. Kalra N, Gupta P, Gorsi U, et al. Irreversible electroporation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: initial experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019; 42(4):584-590.
27. Kim HB, Sung CK, Baik KY, et al. Changes of apoptosis in tumor tissues with time after irreversible electroporation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013; 435(4):651-656.
28. Kingham TP, Karkar AM, D'Angelica MI, et al. Ablation of perivascular hepatic malignant tumors with irreversible electroporation. J Am Coll Surg. 2012; 215(3):379-387.
29. Kwon JH, Chung MJ, Park JY, et al. Initial experience of irreversible electroporation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer in a Korean population. Acta Radiol. 2021; 62(2):164-171.
30. Langan RC, Goldman DA, D'Angelica MI, et al. Recurrence patterns following irreversible electroporation for hepatic malignancies. J Surg Oncol. 2017; 115(6):704-710.
31. Leen E, Picard J, Stebbing J, et al. Percutaneous irreversible electroporation with systemic treatment for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018; 9(2):275-281.
32. Lyons P, Kennedy A, Clover AJP. Electrochemotherapy and basal cell carcinomas: first-time appraisal of the efficacy of electrochemotherapy on survivorship using FACE-Q. JPRAS Open. 2020; 27:119-128.
33. Lyu T, Wang X, Su Z, et al. Irreversible electroporation in primary and metastatic hepatic malignancies: a review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(17):e6386.
34. Mafeld S, Wong JJ, Kibriya N, et al. Percutaneous irreversible electroporation (IRE) of hepatic malignancy: a bi-institutional analysis of safety and outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019; 42(4):577-583.
35. Mandel Y, Laufer S, Belkin M, et al. Irreversible electroporation of human primary uveal melanoma in enucleated eyes. PLoS One. 2013; 8(9):e71789.
36. Månsson C, Nilsson A, Nygren P, Karlson BM. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation for treatment of locally recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgical resection. Anticancer Res. 2020; 40(5):2771-2775.
37. Martin RC, Kwon D, Chalikonda S, et al. Treatment of 200 locally advanced (stage III) pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with irreversible electroporation: safety and efficacy. Ann Surg. 2015; 262(3):486-494.
38. Martin EK, Bhutiani N, Egger ME, et al. Safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation in the treatment of obstructive jaundice in advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2018; 20(11):1092-1097.
39. Martin RC 2nd, McFarland K, Ellis S, Velanovich V. Irreversible electroporation therapy in the management of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2012; 215(3):361-369.
40. Meijerink MR, Ruarus AH, Vroomen LGPH, et al. Irreversible electroporation to treat unresectable colorectal liver metastases (COLDFIRE-2): a phase II, two-center, single-arm clinical trial. Radiology. 2021; 299(2):470-480.
41. Miñana López B, Andrés Boville G, Barbas Bernardos G, et al. Focal therapy of prostate cancer index lesion with irreversible electroporation. A prospective study with a median follow-up of 3 years. J Urol. 2023; 209(1):261-270.
42. Moir J, White SA, French JJ, et al. Systematic review of irreversible electroporation in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014; 40(12):1598-1604.
43. Narayanan G, Hosein PJ, Beulaygue IC, et al. Percutaneous image-guided irreversible electroporation for the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017; 28(3):342-348.
44. Niessen C, Beyer LP, Pregler B, et al. Percutaneous ablation of hepatic tumors using irreversible electroporation: a prospective safety and midterm efficacy study in 34 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016; 27(4):480-486.
45. Niessen C, Thumann S, Beyer L, et al. Percutaneous irreversible electroporation: long-term survival analysis of 71 patients with inoperable malignant hepatic tumors. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:43687.
46. Pech M, Janitzky A, Wendler JJ, et al. Irreversible electroporation of renal cell carcinoma: a first-in-man phase I clinical study. Cardiovasc Interven Radiol. 2011; 34(1):132-138.
47. Petrelli F, Ghidini A, Simioni A, Campana LG. Impact of electrochemotherapy in metastatic cutaneous melanoma: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol. 2022; 61(5):533-544.
48. Ricke J, Jürgens JH, Deschamps F, et al. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) fails to demonstrate efficacy in a prospective multicenter phase II trial on lung malignancies: the ALICE trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015; 38(2):401-408.
49. Scheffer HJ, Nielsen K, de Jong MC, et al. Irreversible electroporation for nonthermal tumor ablation in the clinical setting: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014a; 25(7):997-1011.
50. Scheffer HJ, Nielsen K, van Tilborg AA, et al. Ablation of colorectal liver metastases by irreversible electroporation: results of the COLDFIRE-I ablate-and-resect study. Eur Radiol. 2014b; 24(10):2467-2475.
51. Scheffer HJ, Vroomen LG, de Jong MC, et al. Ablation of locally advanced pancreatic cancer with percutaneous irreversible electroporation: results of the phase I/II PANFIRE study. Radiology. 2017; 282(2):585-597.
52. Scheltema MJ, Geboers B, Blazevski A, et al. Median 5-year outcomes of primary focal irreversible electroporation for localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2023; 131(Suppl 4):6-13.
53. Schicho A, Niessen C, Haimerl M, et al. Long-term survival after percutaneous irreversible electroporation of inoperable colorectal liver metastases. Cancer Manag Res. 2018; 11:317-322.
54. Silk MT, Wimmer T, Lee KS, et al. Percutaneous ablation of peribiliary tumors with irreversible electroporation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25(1):112-118.
55. Stillström D, Beermann M, Engstrand J, et al. Initial experience with irreversible electroporation of liver tumours. Eur J Radiol Open. 2019; 6:62-67.
56. Sugumar K, Hurtado A, Naik I, et al. Multimodal therapy with or without irreversible electroporation for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2022; 24(5):586-595.
57. Sutter O, Calvo J, N'Kontchou G, et al. Safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to thermal ablation techniques: a retrospective single-center case series. Radiology. 2017; 284(3):877-886.
58. Tasu JP, Herpe G, Damion J, et al. Irreversible electroporation to bring initially unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma to surgery: the IRECAP phase II study. Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(10):6885-6895.
59. Tasu JP, Vesselle G, Herpe G, et al. Irreversible electroporation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Where do we stand in 2017? Pancreas. 2017; 46(3):283-287.
60. Thomson KR, Cheung W, Ellis SJ, et al. Investigation of the safety of irreversible electroporation in humans. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011; 22(5):611-621.
61. Timmer FEF, Geboers B, Ruarus AH, et al. MRI-guided stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy versus CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (CROSSFIRE): a single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024; 9(5):448-459.
62. Verloh N, Jensch I, Lürken L, et al. Similar complication rates for irreversible electroporation and thermal ablation in patients with hepatocellular tumors. Radiol Oncol. 2019; 53(1):116-122.
63. Vogel JA, Rombouts SJ, de Rooij T, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by resection or irreversible electroporation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (IMPALA): a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(9):2734-2743.
64. Wah TM, Lenton J, Smith J, et al. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC): a mid-term clinical experience. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(10):7491-7499.
65. Wang H, Xue W, Yan W, et al. Extended focal ablation of localized prostate cancer with high-frequency irreversible electroporation: a nonrandomized controlled trial. JAMA Surg. 2022; 157(8):693-700.
66. Yang PC, Huang KW, Pua U, et al. Prognostic factor analysis of irreversible electroporation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer - a multi-institutional clinical study in Asia. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020; 46(5):811-817.
67. Yeung ES, Chung MW, Wong K, et al. An update on irreversible electroporation of liver tumors. Hong Kong Med J. 2014; 20(4):313-316.
68. Yu M, Li S. Irreversible electroporation for liver cancer ablation: a meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021: S0748-7983(21)00981-1.
69. Zhang K, Stricker P, Löhr M, et al. A multi-center international study to evaluate the safety, functional and oncological outcomes of irreversible electroporation for the ablation of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; 27(3):525-530.
70. Zhang K, Teoh J, Laguna P, et al. Effect of focal vs extended irreversible electroporation for the ablation of localized low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer on early oncological control: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2023; 158(4):343-349.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

1. Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part I: introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. J Urol. 2022; 208(1):10-18.
2. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology^™. © 2026. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. For additional information visit the NCCN website: http://www.nccn.org/index.asp. Accessed on April 1, 2026.
   • Hepatocellular Carcinoma (V1.2026). Revised March 10, 2026.
   • Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (V1.2026). Revised March 18, 2026.
   • Prostate Cancer (V5.2026). Revised January 23, 2026.
   • Soft Tissue Sarcoma (V3.2026). Revised March 12, 2026.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Oncobionic System with six probe output (Oncobionic, Inc., Rancho Santa Margarita, CA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. No. K080376. April 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K080376.pdf. Accessed on May 5, 2026.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The NanoKnife^® System (AngioDynamics, Inc. Fremont, CA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. No. K102329. October 24, 2011. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/K102329.pdf. Accessed on May 5, 2026.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Electrosurgical Cutting and Coagulation Device and Accessories (AngioDynamics, Marlborough MA). No. K0183385. June 18, 2019. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/K183385.pdf. Accessed on May 5, 2026

Ablation, Soft Tissue
Electroporation, Irreversible
IRE
NanoKnife
Oncobionic System
Pulsed electric field (PEF) therapy
Pulsed field ablation (PFA)
Soft Tissue Ablation

The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available.

Federal and State law, as well as contract language, including definitions and specific contract provisions/exclusions, take precedence over Medical Policy and must be considered first in determining eligibility for coverage. The member’s contract benefits in effect on the date that services are rendered must be used. Medical Policy, which addresses medical efficacy, should be considered before utilizing medical opinion in adjudication. Medical technology is constantly evolving, and we reserve the right to review and update Medical Policy periodically.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.

© CPT Only – American Medical Association