A Defined Field Treatment in Glioblastoma

Electrical oncology encompasses different methods. A cell's membrane properties, the electrical impedance of tissue and an applied alternating field describe different things. An observed property does not by itself become a clinically validated diagnostic test.

What the trial actually tested

The EF-14 trial randomized 695 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma after radiochemotherapy to maintenance temozolomide alone or with scalp-array TTFields. It reported median overall survival of 16.0 and 20.9 months respectively from randomization. The regimen involved 200 kHz fields worn at least 18 hours daily. This is evidence about TTFields in this particular setting alongside temozolomide.

Why modality boundaries matter

Localized heating, PEMF and impedance-guided stimulation have different delivery parameters and proposed mechanisms. EF-14 cannot demonstrate their benefit, nor can it establish effects in another cancer or in combination with immunotherapy or radiotherapy. To assess an adaptive oncology intervention, researchers would need a specified device, reliably measured input, prespecified adjustment rule, appropriate comparator and cancer-specific safety and survival endpoints. Electrical tumor profiling remains a separate validation question.

Distinguishing tumor measurement from field treatment Distinguish tumor measurement from field treatment

Specify intervention, cancer and co-treatment

Evaluate against the relevant standard-of-care comparator

What the linked references do not establish: The clinical trial concerns TTFields plus temozolomide in glioblastoma, not other field modalities or cancers.