4.4 Review

Simulation techniques in hyperthermia treatment planning

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 346-357

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2013.790092

Keywords

Electromagnetic; pennes bioheat equation; SAR; thermal dose; ultrasound

Funding

  1. Dutch Cancer Society and Technology Foundation Stichting Technische Wetenschappen (STW)
  2. US National Institutes of Health [PO1-CA42745]
  3. Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) [8059.2 LSPP-LS]
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA070761, P01CA042745] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R21DK092912] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical trials have shown that hyperthermia (HT), i.e. an increase of tissue temperature to 39-44 degrees C, significantly enhance radiotherapy and chemotherapy effectiveness [1]. Driven by the developments in computational techniques and computing power, personalised hyperthermia treatment planning (HTP) has matured and has become a powerful tool for optimising treatment quality. Electromagnetic, ultrasound, and thermal simulations using realistic clinical set-ups are now being performed to achieve patient-specific treatment optimisation. In addition, extensive studies aimed to properly implement novel HT tools and techniques, and to assess the quality of HT, are becoming more common. In this paper, we review the simulation tools and techniques developed for clinical hyperthermia, and evaluate their current status on the path from 'model' to 'clinic'. In addition, we illustrate the major techniques employed for validation and optimisation. HTP has become an essential tool for improvement, control, and assessment of HT treatment quality. As such, it plays a pivotal role in the quest to establish HT as an efficacious addition to multi-modality treatment of cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available