2,237
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Quantification of thermal dose in moderate clinical hyperthermia with radiotherapy: a relook using temperature–time area under the curve (AUC)

ORCID Icon, , ORCID Icon, , , , , , , , & ORCID Icon show all
Pages 296-307 | Received 01 Oct 2020, Accepted 07 Jan 2021, Published online: 24 Feb 2021
 

Abstract

Background

Thermal dose in clinical hyperthermia reported as cumulative equivalent minutes (CEM) at 43 °C (CEM43) and its variants are based on direct thermal cytotoxicity assuming Arrhenius ‘break’ at 43 °C. An alternative method centered on the actual time–temperature plot during each hyperthermia session and its prognostic feasibility is explored.

Methods and materials

Patients with bladder cancer treated with weekly deep hyperthermia followed by radiotherapy were evaluated. From intravesical temperature (T) recordings obtained every 10 secs, the area under the curve (AUC) was computed for each session for T > 37 °C (AUC > 37 °C) and T ≥ 39 °C (AUC ≥ 39 °C). These along with CEM43, CEM43(>37 °C), CEM43(≥39 °C), Tmean, Tmin and Tmax were evaluated for bladder tumor control.

Results

Seventy-four hyperthermia sessions were delivered in 18 patients (median: 4 sessions/patient). Two patients failed in the bladder. For both individual and summated hyperthermia sessions, the Tmean, CEM43, CEM43(>37 °C), CEM43(≥39 °C), AUC > 37 °C and AUC ≥ 39 °C were significantly lower in patients who had a local relapse. Individual AUC ≥ 39 °C for patients with/without local bladder failure were 105.9 ± 58.3 °C-min and 177.9 ± 58.0 °C-min, respectively (p = 0.01). Corresponding summated AUC ≥ 39 °C were 423.7 ± 27.8 °C-min vs. 734.1 ± 194.6 °C-min (p < 0.001), respectively. The median AUC ≥ 39 °C for each hyperthermia session in patients with bladder tumor control was 190 °C-min.

Conclusion

AUC ≥ 39 °C for each hyperthermia session represents the cumulative time–temperature distribution at clinically defined moderate hyperthermia in the range of 39 °C to 45 °C. It is a simple, mathematically computable parameter without any prior assumptions and appears to predict treatment outcome as evident from this study. However, its predictive ability as a thermal dose parameter merits further evaluation in a larger patient cohort.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge Dr. Indranil Pan of Imperial College, London and The Alan Turing Institute, London for his support and guidance for computation of some of the parameters.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this published article.