RADIOFREQUENCY CAPACITIVE HYPERTHERMIA FOR DEEP-SEATED TUMORS .1. STUDIES ON THERMOMETRY
RADIOFREQUENCY CAPACITIVE HYPERTHERMIA FOR DEEP-SEATED TUMORS .1. STUDIES ON THERMOMETRY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/1097-0142(19870701)60:1
复制
发表时间：
1987-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
ABE, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HIRAOKA, M;JO, S;ABE, M
本文报告59例60个深部肿瘤射频电容热疗的测温结果。使用作者与Yamamoto Vinyter Company Ltd.合作开发的两台射频电容加热设备进行区域性热疗，（Osaka，Japan）。通过插入血管导管的热电偶测量肿瘤内温度，血管导管放置在组织中5 cm至12 cm深。在所有肿瘤中测量了307次治疗的肿瘤中心温度;通过微型热电偶获得了53个肿瘤的266次治疗的肿瘤和周围正常组织内的热分布。获得的温度测定结果总结如下。(1)最高肿瘤中心温度大于43 ℃。C和42度。C到43度60个肿瘤中分别有23个（38%）和14个（23%）获得C。达到43度所需的时间。在87%的肿瘤中，在开始热疗后20分钟内，肿瘤中心的温度升高到43 ℃以上。C. (2)肿瘤内的温度变化超过2.5 ℃。81%的肿瘤加热到43 ℃以上。C.最低肿瘤温度大于42 ℃。在53个肿瘤中的6个（11%）中实现了C。在42个肿瘤中，比较了皮下脂肪、周围正常组织和肿瘤中心的温度，24个（57%）显示肿瘤中心的最高温度，10个（24%）显示皮下脂肪的最高温度。(3)当根据最大肿瘤中心评估加热效果时，它在很大程度上取决于治疗部位、肿瘤大小、皮下脂肪厚度和肿瘤类型。头颈部、胸部、下腹部和骨盆的肿瘤比上腹部的肿瘤更容易加热。较大的低血供肿瘤患者和皮下脂肪厚度小于15 mm的患者显示出更大的加热效果。(4)功率升高的主要限制因素是与发热相关的疼痛。包括脉率和体温增加在内的全身体征并不严重，很少成为功率升高的限制因素。我们的温度测量结果表明，深射频电容加热的优点是适用于各种解剖部位，全身效应可忽略不计。缺点是其主要用途仅限于皮下脂肪薄和肿瘤较大或血管不足的患者。
The thermometry results of radiofrequency (RF) capacitive hyperthermia for 60 deep-seated tumors in 59 patients are reported. Hyperthermia was administered regionally using two RF capacitive heating equipments which the authors have developed in cooperation with Yamamoto Vinyter Company Ltd., (Osaka, Japan). Intratumor temperatures were measured by thermocouples inserted through angiocatheters which were placed 5 cm to 12 cm deep into the tissues. Tumor center temperatures were measured for 307 treatments in all tumors; thermal distributions within tumors and surrounding normal tissues were obtained for 266 treatments of 53 tumors by microthermocouples. Thermometry results obtained were summarized as follows. (1) A maximum tumor center temperature greater than 43.degree. C and 42.degree. C to 43.degree. C was obtained in 23 (38%) and 14 (23%) of the 60 tumors respectively. The time required to reach 43.degree. C in the tumor center was within 20 minutes after the start of hyperthermia in 87% of tumors heated to more than 43.degree. C. (2) Temperature variations within a tumor exceeded 2.degree. C in 81% of tumors heated to more than 43.degree. C. The lowest tumor temperature greater than 42.degree. C was achieved in six of the 53 tumors (11%). Of 42 tumors in which temperatures of the subcutaneous fat, surrounding normal tissues, and the tumor center were compared, 24 (57%) showed the highest temperature in the tumor center and ten (24%) in the subcutaneous fat. (3) When the heating efficacy was assessed in terms of a maximum tumor center, it great deal depended on the treatment site, tumor size, thickness of subcutaneous fat, and tumor type. Tumors in the head and neck, thorax, lower abdomen, and pelvis could be heated better than tumors in the upper abdomen. Greater heating efficacy was shown in patients with large, hypovascular tumors, and with the subcutaneous fat measuring less than 15 mm thick. (4) The predominant limiting factor for power elevation was pain associated with heating. Systemic signs including increases in pulse rate and body temperature were not serious and seldom became limiting factors for power elevation. Our thermometry results indicate that the advantages of deep RF capacitive heating are its applicability to various anatomic sites and negligible systemic effects. The disadvantages are that its primary usefulness is limited to patients with thin subcutaneous fat and with large or hypovascular tumors.