Literature DB >> 12007949

Three-dimensional controlled interstitial hyperthermia combined with radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate carcinoma--a feasibility study.

Marco van Vulpen1, Bas W Raaymakers, Jan J W Lagendijk, Johan Crezee, Astrid A C de Leeuw, Jeroen R A van Moorselaar, Cornelis M Ligtvoet, Jan J Battermann.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform a feasibility study of three-dimensional spatially controlled interstitial hyperthermia for locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve patients with prostate cancer (T3NxM0) were treated with conventional external beam radiotherapy and one interstitial hyperthermia treatment. Hyperthermia was delivered with the 27-MHz multielectrode current source (MECS) interstitial hyperthermia technique on an outpatient basis. Guided by transrectal ultrasonography, 12 catheters (range 7-16) were placed in the prostate through a template. Two electrodes per probe were inserted. Thermometry (average 100 sensors) was performed from within the probes for online temperature control. Additional thermometry was done in the prostate, rectum, urethra, and bladder. Reconstruction was done by sonography. Prostate perfusion was estimated from the thermal decay at the end of treatment. The full three-dimensional temperature distribution was calculated.
RESULTS: No toxicities greater than Grade 2 were recorded. A learning curve for implantation, position verification, reconstruction, and temperature simulation was experienced. Perfusion was 47 mL/100 g/min (range 30-65). The average measured temperature was T(90) (90% of the prostate reached a temperature of at least:) 39.9 degrees C and T(50) 44.1 degrees C. The average calculated temperatures were lower: T(90), 39.4 degrees C and T(50), 41.8 degrees C, because the entire prostate was taken into account. The tumor temperatures were T(90), 40.7 degrees C and T(50), 43.0 degrees C. The bladder and rectal temperatures were below the safety limits.
CONCLUSION: Multielectrode-current-source interstitial hyperthermia is technically feasible and well tolerated. It was not possible to achieve the goal temperature of 42-43 degrees C because of high perfusion and implantation limitations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12007949     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02828-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  4 in total

Review 1.  Heating technology for malignant tumors: a review.

Authors:  H Petra Kok; Erik N K Cressman; Wim Ceelen; Christopher L Brace; Robert Ivkov; Holger Grüll; Gail Ter Haar; Peter Wust; Johannes Crezee
Journal:  Int J Hyperthermia       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 3.914

2.  Whither Magnetic Hyperthermia? A Tentative Roadmap.

Authors:  Irene Rubia-Rodríguez; Antonio Santana-Otero; Simo Spassov; Etelka Tombácz; Christer Johansson; Patricia De La Presa; Francisco J Teran; María Del Puerto Morales; Sabino Veintemillas-Verdaguer; Nguyen T K Thanh; Maximilian O Besenhard; Claire Wilhelm; Florence Gazeau; Quentin Harmer; Eric Mayes; Bella B Manshian; Stefaan J Soenen; Yuanyu Gu; Ángel Millán; Eleni K Efthimiadou; Jeff Gaudet; Patrick Goodwill; James Mansfield; Uwe Steinhoff; James Wells; Frank Wiekhorst; Daniel Ortega
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Thermal Boost to Breast Tumor Bed-New Technique Description, Treatment Application and Example Clinical Results.

Authors:  Adam Chicheł; Wojciech Burchardt; Artur J Chyrek; Grzegorz Bielęda; Grzegorz Zwierzchowski; Patrycja Stefaniak; Julian Malicki
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-30

4.  A Novel Framework for the Optimization of Simultaneous ThermoBrachyTherapy.

Authors:  Ioannis Androulakis; Rob M C Mestrom; Miranda E M C Christianen; Inger-Karine K Kolkman-Deurloo; Gerard C van Rhoon
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 6.639

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.