Sapozink M D, Gibbs F A, Thomson J W, Eltringham J R, Stewart J R
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985 Jan;11(1):179-90. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(85)90377-3.
Twenty-two patients with advanced pelvic or abdominal malignancy (or both) were treated on successive occasions with hyperthermia produced by an annular array (AA) (60-80 MHz, 500-1800 W forward power) and a concentric coil (CC) (13.56 MHz, 350-1000 W forward power). Both devices were compared with respect to acute toxicity and power limitations. There was no power limiting factor in pelvic heating in 7/14 patients treated with the AA, however 13/14 experienced power limiting sacrococcygeal pain with the CC. The 9 patients who underwent abdominal heating had a variety of power limitations with both devices. Thermal mapping was performed in 23 treatments with the AA and in 19 with the CC. Composite thermal maps of patients with similar thermometry sites show that heating patterns produced by the CC were predictable from theory and static phantom measurements. The AA achieved broader regional heating, particularly at depth, but heating patterns were less predictable. Spatial thermal dose (TD) analysis revealed higher minimum tumor TDs and more favorable mean tumor/normal tissue TD ratios with the AA than with the CC. We conclude that the AA is superior to the CC for pelvic treatment and that both devices have limitations in abdominal treatment.
22例晚期盆腔或腹部恶性肿瘤（或两者皆有）患者先后接受了环形阵列（AA）（60 - 80 MHz，500 - 1800 W前向功率）和同心线圈（CC）（13.56 MHz，350 - 1000 W前向功率）产生的热疗。对这两种设备在急性毒性和功率限制方面进行了比较。在接受AA治疗的14例盆腔加热患者中，7例没有功率限制因素，然而在接受CC治疗的14例患者中，13例出现了功率限制导致的骶尾部疼痛。9例接受腹部加热的患者在使用两种设备时都有各种功率限制。对23次使用AA和19次使用CC的治疗进行了热图绘制。具有相似测温部位的患者的复合热图显示，CC产生的加热模式从理论和静态模型测量来看是可预测的。AA实现了更广泛的区域加热，尤其是在深度方面，但加热模式较难预测。空间热剂量（TD）分析显示，与CC相比，AA的最小肿瘤TD更高，且肿瘤/正常组织平均TD比更有利。我们得出结论，AA在盆腔治疗方面优于CC，并且两种设备在腹部治疗方面都有局限性。
