Rationale for using invasive thermometry for regional hyperthermia of pelvic tumors.

PURPOSE: Invasive thermometry for regional hyperthermia is time-consuming, uncomfortable, and risky for the patient. We tried to estimate the benefit/cost ratio of invasive thermometry in regional hyperthermia using the radiofrequency system BSD-2000. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated 182 patients with locally advanced pelvic tumors that underwent regional hyperthermia. In every patient a tumor-related temperature measurement point was obtained either by invasive or minimally invasive catheter measurement tracks. In the earlier period for every patient an intratumoral measurement point was decided as obligatory and intratumoral catheters were implanted intraoperatively, CT guided, or under fluoroscopy. In the later period, invasive thermometry often was avoided, if a measurement point in or near the tumor was reached by an endoluminally inserted catheter (rectal, vaginal, cervical, urethral, or vesical). For every patient side effects and complications referred to thermometry were evaluated and compared with the potential benefit of the invasively achieved temperature data. The suitability of endolumimally registered temperatures is analyzed to estimate local feasibility (specific absorption rate achieved) and local effectiveness (thermal parameters correlated with response).
RESULTS: In 74 of 182 patients invasive thermometry was performed, at most CT-guided for soft tissue sarcomas and rectal recurrences. In 14 of 74 (19%) side effects such as local inflammation, pain, or abscess formation occurred that enforced removal of the catheter. However, local problems were strongly correlated with the dwell time of the catheter and nearly never occurred for dwell times less than 5 days. Fortunately, no fatal complications (e.g., bleeding or perforation) occurred during or after implantation which could be attributed to the invasive thermometry procedure. Endoluminal tumor-related temperature rises per time unit (to estimate power density) were correlated with intratumoral rises at the same patients (where both measurements were available). For a subgroup of patients pooled in two Phase II studies with rectal (n = 37) and cervical (n = 18) carcinomas thermal parameters derived from endoluminal measurements were correlated with response or local control, resp.
CONCLUSIONS: If a tumor-related endoluminal temperature measurement point is available, additional invasive thermometry gives no further information to improve the power deposition pattern. For primary rectal and cervical cancer, and probably as well for prostate, bladder and anal cancer, endoluminal measurements are suitable to estimate local feasibility and effectiveness. Therefore, invasive thermometry is dispensable in the majority of patients. In some selected cases, temperature measurement in the tumor center is required to estimate the maximum temperature. In those cases, dwell time of catheters should be minimized--and it should be considered to perform invasive thermometry at the beginning (one or two heat treatments).