Oleson J R, Sim D A, Manning M R
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1984 Dec;10(12):2231-9. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(84)90228-1.
From 1977-1982, 161 patients were treated using hyperthermia as an adjuvant in Phase I trials. Microwave applicators (MW), capacitively coupled plates (RF plates), interstitial localized current fields (LCF), and magnetic induction heating (MI) techniques were used together with radiation in 135 patients, with chemotherapy in 10 patients, and alone in 16 patients. Tumor volume response categories were no response (NR, less than 50% decrease); partial response (PR, 50% less than or equal to volume decrease less than 100%); and complete response (CR, complete disappearance). The CR rates and total response rates (CR + PR) were 38/160 (24%) and 90/160 (56%), respectively. There were highly significant differences among techniques in CR vs PR + NR (p = .001), and in CR + PR vs NR (p less than .0005). Response did not vary significantly with histologic category. Overall toxicity was 16%, and did not vary significantly with technique (p = .193). In the patient group treated with hyperthermia and radiation, multivariate analysis revealed that a set of three variables had prognostic importance for CR: technique (p = .011), radiation dose (p = .019), and tumor volume (p = .001, negatively correlated). A good correlation also existed between CR and the minimum tumor temperature averaged over all treatments, TMIN (p less than .0005). Temperature variables themselves were correlated with tumor volume. Minimum T correlated negatively with volume (p = .017) and TMAX correlated positively with volume (p = .026). In fewer than 50% of patients could minimum T greater than 40.7 degrees C be achieved. Our conclusions are: TMIN, tumor volume, radiation dose, and heating technique have prognostic value for initial response; variation in CR vs technique reflects variation in tumor volume treated and in minimum temperature achieved with these techniques; and acute toxicity of treatment is infrequent, but serious toxicity is possible with the interstitial technique.
1977年至1982年期间,161例患者在I期试验中接受了热疗作为辅助治疗。135例患者将微波 applicators(MW)、电容耦合板(RF板)、间质局部电流场(LCF)和磁感应加热(MI)技术与放疗联合使用,10例患者与化疗联合使用,16例患者单独使用。肿瘤体积反应类别分为无反应(NR,体积减少小于50%);部分反应(PR,体积减少50%及以上且小于100%);完全反应(CR,完全消失)。CR率和总反应率(CR + PR)分别为38/160(24%)和90/160(56%)。在CR与PR + NR(p = 0.001)以及CR + PR与NR(p小于0.0005)方面技术之间存在高度显著差异。反应在组织学类别方面无显著差异。总体毒性为16%,在技术方面无显著差异(p = 0.193)。在接受热疗和放疗的患者组中,多变量分析显示一组三个变量对CR具有预后重要性:技术(p = 0.011)、放疗剂量(p = 0.019)和肿瘤体积(p = 0.001,负相关)。CR与所有治疗的平均最低肿瘤温度TMIN之间也存在良好相关性(p小于0.0005)。温度变量本身与肿瘤体积相关。最低温度T与体积呈负相关(p = 0.017),最高温度T与体积呈正相关(p = 0.026)。不到50%的患者能够达到最低温度T大于40.7摄氏度。我们的结论是:TMIN、肿瘤体积、放疗剂量和加热技术对初始反应具有预后价值;CR相对于技术的变化反映了所治疗肿瘤体积的变化以及这些技术所达到的最低温度的变化;治疗的急性毒性不常见,但间质技术可能会出现严重毒性。