Search

Aim: Hyperthermia (HT) has been shown to improve clinical response to radiation therapy (RT) for cancer. Synergism is dramatically enhanced if HT and RT are combined simultaneously, but appropriate technology to apply treatments together does not exist. This study investigates the feasibility of delivering HT with RT to a 5-10mm annular rim of at-risk tissue around a tumor resection cavity using a temporary thermobrachytherapy (TBT) balloon implant., Methods: A balloon catheter was designed to deliver radiation from High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy concurrent with HT delivered by filling the balloon with magnetic nanoparticles (MNP) and immersing it in a radiofrequency magnetic field. Temperature distributions in brain around the TBT balloon were simulated with temperature dependent brain blood perfusion using numerical modeling. A magnetic induction system was constructed and used to produce rapid heating (>0.2°C/s) of MNP-filled balloons in brain tissue-equivalent phantoms by absorbing 0.5 W/ml from a 5.7 kA/m field at 133 kHz., Results: Simulated treatment plans demonstrate the ability to heat at-risk tissue around a brain tumor resection cavity between 40-48°C for 2-5cm diameter balloons. Experimental thermal dosimetry verifies the expected rapid and spherically symmetric heating of brain phantom around the MNP-filled balloon at a magnetic field strength that has proven safe in previous clinical studies., Conclusions: These preclinical results demonstrate the feasibility of using a TBT balloon to deliver heat simultaneously with HDR brachytherapy to tumor bed around a brain tumor resection cavity, with significantly improved uniformity of heating over previous multi-catheter interstitial approaches. Considered along with results of previous clinical thermobrachytherapy trials, this new capability is expected to improve both survival and quality of life in patients with glioblastoma multiforme.

Hyperthermia holds great promise to advance immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer. Multiple trials have demonstrated benefit with the addition of hyperthermia to radiation or chemotherapy in the treatment of wide-ranging malignancies. Similarly, pre-clinical studies have demonstrated the ability of hyperthermia to enhance each of the 8 steps in the cancer-immunotherapy cycle including stimulation of tumor-specific immunity. While there has been an extensive recent focus on augmenting immunotherapy with radiation, surprisingly to date, there have been no clinical trials assessing the combination of hyperthermia with immunotherapy. The study of hyperthermia with immunotherapy is particularly compelling when considered in the context of a new treatment paradigm for this anti-neoplastic modality. Novel concepts include ease of treatment including elicitation of the tumor-specific response of not requiring whole tumor heating, potentially shorter treatment time, better treatment tolerance as opposed to other multi-agent approaches to immunotherapy and the ability to apply heat repeatedly with immunotherapies, unlike ionizing radiation. Several questions remained with regard to clinical integration which can be readily addressed with thoughtful clinical trial design building upon lessons learned at the bench and from clinical trials combining radiation and immunotherapy. Examples of promising avenues for clinical investigation of hyperthermia and immunotherapy including melanoma, bladder, and head and neck cancers are reviewed. In summary, there is a present convergence of factors in oncology that compel further investigation of the integration of hyperthermia with immunotherapy for the benefit of cancer patients.

Quality assurance (QA) guidelines are essential to provide uniform execution of clinical hyperthermia treatments and trials. This document outlines the clinical and technical consequences of the specific properties of interstitial heat delivery and specifies recommendations for hyperthermia administration with interstitial techniques. Interstitial hyperthermia aims at tumor temperatures in the 40-44 °C range as an adjunct to radiation or chemotherapy. The clinical part of this document imparts specific clinical experience of interstitial heat delivery to various tumor sites as well as recommended interstitial hyperthermia workflow and procedures. The second part describes technical requirements for quality assurance of current interstitial heating equipment including electromagnetic (radiative and capacitive) and ultrasound heating techniques. Detailed instructions are provided on characterization and documentation of the performance of interstitial hyperthermia applicators to achieve reproducible hyperthermia treatments of uniform high quality. Output power and consequent temperature rise are the key parameters for characterization of applicator performance in these QA guidelines. These characteristics determine the specific maximum tumor size and depth that can be heated adequately. The guidelines were developed by the ESHO Technical Committee with participation of senior STM members and members of the Atzelsberg Circle.

Quality assurance (QA) guidelines are essential to provide uniform execution of clinical trials with uniform quality hyperthermia treatments. This document outlines the requirements for appropriate QA of all current superficial heating equipment including electromagnetic (radiative and capacitive), ultrasound, and infrared heating techniques. Detailed instructions are provided how to characterize and document the performance of these hyperthermia applicators in order to apply reproducible hyperthermia treatments of uniform high quality. Earlier documents used specific absorption rate (SAR) to define and characterize applicator performance. In these QA guidelines, temperature rise is the leading parameter for characterization of applicator performance. The intention of this approach is that characterization can be achieved with affordable equipment and easy-to-implement procedures. These characteristics are essential to establish for each individual applicator the specific maximum size and depth of tumors that can be heated adequately. The guidelines in this document are supplemented with a second set of guidelines focusing on the clinical application. Both sets of guidelines were developed by the European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology (ESHO) Technical Committee with participation of senior Society of Thermal Medicine (STM) members and members of the Atzelsberg Circle.

Like other technically sophisticated medical endeavours, a hyperthermia clinic relies on skilled staffing. Physicians, physicists and technologists perform multiple tasks to ensure properly functioning equipment, appropriate patient selection, and to plan and administer this treatment. This paper reviews the competencies and tasks that are used in a hyperthermia clinic.

Background: The authors present long-term results from a phase 2 study that assessed the efficacy of transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia plus radiation with or without androgen suppression for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer., Methods: Patients with clinical T2b-T3bN0M0 disease (according to 1992 American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] criteria) received radiation plus 2 transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia treatments. After the first 4 patients, 6 months of androgen suppression were allowed. The study was designed to assess absolute improvement in the 2-year disease-free survival rate compared with the short-term androgen suppression arm in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 92-02., Results: Thirty-seven patients received a total of 72 hyperthermia treatments. The mean cumulative equivalent minutes (CEM) T₉₀ 43°C was 8.4 minutes. According to the 1992 AJCC classification, there were 19 patients with T2b tumors, 8 patients with T2c tumors, 5 patients with T3a tumors, and 5 patients with T3b tumors. The median Gleason score was 7 (range, 6-9), and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 13.3 ng/mL (range, 2-65 ng/mL). Thirty-three patients received androgen suppression. At a median follow-up of 70 months (range, 18-110 months), the 7-year overall survival rate was 94%, and 61% of patients remained failure free (according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition for failure free survival). The absolute rate of disease-free survival at 2 years, which was the primary study endpoint, improved significantly (84%) compared with a rate of 64% for similar patients on the 4-month androgen suppression arm of RTOG 92-02. When Phoenix criteria (PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL) were used to define biochemical failure, 89% of patients were failure free at 2 years., Conclusions: Hyperthermia combined with radiation for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer appeared to be promising. The current results indicated that further study of hyperthermia for the treatment of prostate cancer with optimal radiation and systemic therapy is warranted., (Copyright © 2010 American Cancer Society.)

The realization that hyperthermia was an ideal complementary treatment to radiation and certain chemotherapeutic agents from a biologic perspective led to great enthusiasm for this modality over a quarter of a century ago. Unfortunately, this well-deserved enthusiasm quickly become tempered because of the inability to effectively heat tumors, particularly deep-seated ones with cumbersome first generation technology coupled with still-emerging understandings of thermal biology. Today as before, both challenges and opportunities remain in the application of hyperthermia for cancer patients. The lessons learned from the introduction of hyperthermia, a generation ago, are providing focus for application of this still-promising modality in today's clinic. These areas of challenge and opportunity include: thermal biology; treatment planning, delivery, and monitoring; successful high-quality clinical trials; and integration of thermal therapy with emerging technologies and therapeutic strategies both established and evolving. The progress made in understanding of thermal biology, physics, and bioengineering, coupled with advances in complementary clinical treatment modalities have all contributed to the next generation of clinical thermal therapy.

Purpose: Hyperthermia is used to treat several pelvic tumours. An important step in establishing a broader role for hyperthermia in treatment of prostate cancer is verification of an acceptable toxicity profile. In this report, short- and long-term toxicity profiles of a completed phase II trial of transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia combined with radiation in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer are presented., Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients enrolled on a phase II study of external beam radiation +/- androgen suppression with two transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia treatments were assessed for short- and long-term toxicity. Prostatic and anterior rectal wall temperatures were monitored. Rectal wall temperatures were limited to 40 degrees C (19 patients), 41 degrees C (three patients) and 42 degrees C (15 patients). Univariate logistic regression was used to estimate the log hazard of developing NCI CTC Grade 2 toxicity based on temperature parameters. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals, p-values for statistical significance of each parameter and proportion of variability explained for each of the parameters were calculated., Results: Median follow-up was 42 months. Both short- and long-term GI toxicity were limited to grade 2 or less. Acute grade 2 proctitis was greater for patients with allowable rectal wall temperature of >40 degrees C. Eleven of 18 patients in this group had acute grade 2 proctitis vs three of 19 patients with rectal wall temperatures limited to 40 degrees C (p = 0.004). Long-term grade 2 GI and GU toxicity occurred in 5% and 19% of patients. No late grade 3 or greater toxicity occurred. Late GI and GU toxicity were not associated with the allowable rectal wall temperature., Conclusion: Transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia combined with radiation for treatment of advanced clinically localized prostate cancer is safe and well tolerated.

Purpose: Although hyperthermia has been used for more than two decades in the treatment of pelvic tumors, little is known about the potential impact of heat on rectal toxicity when combined with other treatment modalities. Because rectal toxicity is a concern with radiation and may be exacerbated by hyperthermia, definition of the association of thermal dose parameters with rectal toxicity is important. In this report, we correlate rectal toxicity with thermal dose parameters for patients treated with hyperthermia and radiation for prostate cancer., Methods and Materials: Thirty patients with T2b-T3b disease (1992 American Joint Committee On Cancer criteria) enrolled in a Phase II study of external beam radiation +/- androgen-suppressive therapy with two transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia treatments were assessed for rectal toxicity. Prostatic and anterior rectal wall temperatures were monitored for all treatments. Rectal wall temperatures were limited to 40 degrees C in 19 patients, 41 degrees C in 3 patients, and 42 degrees C in 8 patients. Logistic regression was used to estimate the log hazard of developing National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Grade 2 toxicity based on temperature parameters. The following were calculated: hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals, p values for statistical significance of each parameter, and proportion of variability explained for each parameter., Results: Gastrointestinal toxicity was limited to Grade 2. The rate of acute Grade 2 proctitis was greater for patients with an allowable rectal wall temperature of >40 degrees C. In this group, 7 of 11 patients experienced acute Grade 2 proctitis, as opposed to 3 of 19 patients in the group with rectal wall temperatures limited to 40 degrees C (p = 0.004). Preliminary assessment of long-term toxicity revealed no differences in toxicity. Hazard ratios for acute Grade 2 proctitis for allowable rectal wall temperature, average rectal wall Tmax, and average prostate Tmax were 9.33 (p = 0.01), 3.66 (p = 0.03), and 2.29 (p = 0.08), respectively. A model combining these three parameters explained 48.6% of the variability among groups., Conclusion: Rectal toxicity correlates with maximum allowable rectal wall temperature, average rectal wall Tmax, and average prostate Tmax for patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia combined with radiation for treatment of advanced clinically localized prostate cancer. Further definition of this association of thermal dose parameters with rectal toxicity in treatment of pelvic malignancies with hyperthermia should advance the goal of delivering thermal therapy in an effective yet safe manner.

This report describes patient tolerance and toxicity of a transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia system used with external beam radiation therapy in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. Nine patients with clinical T2B-T3B (4th edition AJCC criteria) disease received external beam radiation therapy, with two hyperthermia treatments scheduled at least 1 week apart during the first 4 weeks of radiation. Five patients also received hormonal therapy. Interstitial and anterior rectal wall thermometry were performed. Median temperature for each treatment (T50) was 40.8 degrees C and mean CEM T90 = 43 degrees C was 3.4 min. Rectal wall temperature was maintained at < or = 40 degrees C. Treatment duration was limited in three of 17 sessions due to positional discomfort which was alleviated with light IV sedation and use of a 'New Life' mattress (Comfortex, Inc. Winoba, MN, USA). Acute toxicity was limited to NCI common toxicity criteria grade 1 and no excess toxicity was noted with full course radiation therapy +/- hormonal therapy. These findings are consistent with those reported in a previous phase I trial assessing this device. Given the favourable toxicity profile demonstrated to date, modification of treatment parameters for this ongoing phase II study have been instituted that should further the efficacy of transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia for treatment of prostate cancer.