H. Petra Kok

Advanced patient-specific hyperthermia treatment planning

Hyperthermia treatment planning (HTP) is valuable to optimize tumor heating during thermal therapy delivery. Yet, clinical hyperthermia treatment plans lack quantitative accuracy due to uncertainties in tissue properties and modeling, and report tumor absorbed power and temperature distributions which cannot be linked directly to treatment outcome. Over the last decade, considerable progress has been made to address these inaccuracies and therefore improve the reliability of hyperthermia treatment planning. Patient-specific electrical tissue conductivity derived from MR measurements has been introduced to accurately model the power deposition in the patient. Thermodynamic fluid modeling has been developed to account for the convective heat transport in fluids such as urine in the bladder. Moreover, discrete vasculature trees have been included in thermal models to account for the impact of thermally significant large blood vessels. Computationally efficient optimization strategies based on SAR and temperature distributions have been established to calculate the phase-amplitude settings that provide the best tumor thermal dose while avoiding hot spots in normal tissue. Finally, biological modeling has been developed to quantify the hyperthermic radiosensitization effect in terms of equivalent radiation dose of the combined radiotherapy and hyperthermia treatment. In this paper, we review the present status of these developments and illustrate the most relevant advanced elements within a single treatment planning example of a cervical cancer patient. The resulting advanced HTP workflow paves the way for a clinically feasible and more reliable patient-specific hyperthermia treatment planning.

Comparison of the clinical performance of a hybrid Alba 4D and the AMC-4 locoregional hyperthermia systems

The in-house developed 70 MHz AMC-4 locoregional hyperthermia system has been in clinical use since 1984. This device was recently commercialized as the Alba 4D (Medlogix During one year after clinical acceptance of the hybrid Alba 4D, both devices were used for treatment delivery in patients scheduled for locoregional hyperthermia. Each patient started with the AMC-4, next sessions were allocated to either device. Possible differences between Alba 4D and AMC-4 sessions in power, achieved temperature T0, T10, T50, T90, T100, treatment time and complaints per session, were evaluated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for repeated measures with patient as random effect. From March 2018 to April 2019, eleven patients with cervical, pancreatic, vaginal carcinoma and uterine leiomyosarcoma received 27 locoregional hyperthermia sessions with the Alba 4D and 34 sessions with the AMC-4. Median number of sessions per patient was 5 (range 3-13). Treatment results for both devices were not significantly different: T50 was 40.5 ± 1.0 °C Results of the first patients treated with the hybrid Alba 4D demonstrated comparable clinical performance of the Alba 4D and AMC-4 locoregional hyperthermia systems, and both devices are expected to yield similar favorable clinical results.

Biological treatment evaluation in thermoradiotherapy: application in cervical cancer patients

Abstract Background Hyperthermia treatment quality is usually evaluated by thermal (dose) parameters, though hyperthermic radiosensitization effects are also influenced by the time interval between the two modalities. This work applies biological modelling for clinical treatment evaluation of cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia by calculating the equivalent radiation dose (EQDRT, i.e., the dose needed for the same effect with radiation alone). Subsequent analyses evaluate the impact of logistics. Methods Biological treatment evaluation was performed for 58 patients treated with 23–28 fractions of 1.8–2 Gy plus 4–5 weekly hyperthermia sessions. Measured temperatures (T50) and recorded time intervals between the radiotherapy and hyperthermia sessions were used to calculate the EQDRT using an extended linear quadratic (LQ) model with hyperthermic LQ parameters based on extensive experimental data. Next, the impact of a 30-min time interval (optimized logistics) as well as a 4‑h time interval (suboptimal logistics) was evaluated. Results Median average measured T50 and recorded time intervals were 41.2 °C (range 39.7–42.5 °C) and 79 min (range 34–125 min), respectively, resulting in a median total dose enhancement (D50) of 5.5 Gy (interquartile range [IQR] 4.0–6.6 Gy). For 30-min time intervals, the enhancement would increase by ~30% to 7.1 Gy (IQR 5.5–8.1 Gy; p < 0.001). In case of 4‑h time intervals, an ~ 40% decrease in dose enhancement could be expected: 3.2 Gy (IQR 2.3–3.8 Gy; p < 0.001). Normal tissue enhancement was negligible (< 0.3 Gy), even for short time intervals. Conclusion Biological treatment evaluation is a useful addition to standard thermal (dose) evaluation of hyperthermia treatments. Optimizing logistics to shorten time intervals seems worthwhile to improve treatment efficacy.