PURPOSE: It is unknown whether a thermal dose should be administered using a few large fractions with higher temperatures or a larger number of fractions with lower temperatures. To evaluate this we assessed the effect of administering the same total thermal dose, approximately 30 CEM43T(90), in one versus three to four fractions per week, over 5 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Canine sarcomas were randomised to receive one of the hyperthermia fractionation schemes along with fractionated radiotherapy. Tumour response was based on changes in tumour volume, oxygenation, water diffusion quantified using MRI, and a panel of histological and immunohistochemical end points. RESULTS: There was a greater reduction in tumour volume and water diffusion at the end of therapy in tumours receiving one hyperthermia fraction per week. There was a weak but significant association between improved tumour oxygenation 24 h after the first hyperthermia treatment and extent of volume reduction at the end of therapy. Finally, the direction of change of HIF-1α and CA-IX immunoreactivity after the first hyperthermia fraction was similar and there was an inverse relationship between temperature and the direction of change of CA-IX. There were no significant changes in interstitial fluid pressure, VEGF, vWF, apoptosis or necrosis as a function of treatment group or temperature. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify an advantage to a three to four per week hyperthermia prescription, and response data pointed to a one per week prescription being superior.
PURPOSE: It is unknown whether a thermal dose should be administered using a few large fractions with higher temperatures or a larger number of fractions with lower temperatures. To evaluate this we assessed the effect of administering the same total thermal dose, approximately 30 CEM43T(90), in one versus three to four fractions per week, over 5 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Caninesarcomas were randomised to receive one of the hyperthermia fractionation schemes along with fractionated radiotherapy. Tumour response was based on changes in tumour volume, oxygenation, water diffusion quantified using MRI, and a panel of histological and immunohistochemical end points. RESULTS: There was a greater reduction in tumour volume and water diffusion at the end of therapy in tumours receiving one hyperthermia fraction per week. There was a weak but significant association between improved tumour oxygenation 24 h after the first hyperthermia treatment and extent of volume reduction at the end of therapy. Finally, the direction of change of HIF-1α and CA-IX immunoreactivity after the first hyperthermia fraction was similar and there was an inverse relationship between temperature and the direction of change of CA-IX. There were no significant changes in interstitial fluid pressure, VEGF, vWF, apoptosis or necrosis as a function of treatment group or temperature. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify an advantage to a three to four per week hyperthermia prescription, and response data pointed to a one per week prescription being superior.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Z Vujaskovic; J M Poulson; A A Gaskin; D E Thrall; R L Page; H C Charles; J R MacFall; D M Brizel; R E Meyer; D M Prescott; T V Samulski; M W Dewhirst Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Italiano; F Delva; S Mathoulin-Pelissier; A Le Cesne; S Bonvalot; P Terrier; M Trassard; J-J Michels; J-Y Blay; J-M Coindre; B Bui Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J van der Zee; D González González; G C van Rhoon; J D van Dijk; W L van Putten; A A Hart Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-04-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D E Thrall; G L Rosner; C Azuma; S M Larue; B C Case; T Samulski; M W Dewhirst Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2000 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: W B Pope; A Lai; R Mehta; H J Kim; J Qiao; J R Young; X Xue; J Goldin; M S Brown; P L Nghiemphu; A Tran; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dorthe M Katschinski; Lu Le; Daniel Heinrich; Klaus F Wagner; Thomas Hofer; Susann G Schindler; Roland H Wenger Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2002-01-04 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Corinne M Doll; Michael Milosevic; Melania Pintilie; Richard P Hill; Anthony W Fyles Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eui Jung Moon; Pierre Sonveaux; Paolo E Porporato; Pierre Danhier; Bernard Gallez; Ines Batinic-Haberle; Yu-Chih Nien; Thies Schroeder; Mark W Dewhirst Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alexander F Bagley; Ruth Scherz-Shouval; Peter A Galie; Angela Q Zhang; Jeffrey Wyckoff; Luke Whitesell; Christopher S Chen; Susan Lindquist; Sangeeta N Bhatia Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Michael W Nolan; Tracy L Gieger; Alexander A Karakashian; Mariana N Nikolova-Karakashian; Lysa P Posner; Donald M Roback; Judith N Rivera; Sha Chang Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-07