4.6 Review

External Basic Hyperthermia Devices for Preclinical Studies in Small Animals

Journal

CANCERS
Volume 13, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13184628

Keywords

hyperthermia; preclinical hyperthermia; small animals; standardization; multimodal therapy

Categories

Funding

  1. MRace [2017-21]
  2. European Union [845645]
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [845645] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mild hyperthermia shows promise as an adjuvant for solid tumor treatment, but standardization of experimental design and methods is crucial for enhancing reproducibility and facilitating comparison of results.
Simple Summary The application of mild hyperthermia can be beneficial for solid tumor treatment by induction of sublethal effects on a tissue- and cellular level. When designing a hyperthermia experiment, several factors should be taken into consideration. In this review, multiple elementary hyperthermia devices are described in detail to aid standardization of treatment design. Preclinical studies have shown that application of mild hyperthermia (40-43 degrees C) is a promising adjuvant to solid tumor treatment. To improve preclinical testing, enhance reproducibility, and allow comparison of the obtained results, it is crucial to have standardization of the available methods. Reproducibility of methods in and between research groups on the same techniques is crucial to have a better prediction of the clinical outcome and to improve new treatment strategies (for instance with heat-sensitive nanoparticles). Here we provide a preclinically oriented review on the use and applicability of basic hyperthermia systems available for solid tumor thermal treatment in small animals. The complexity of these techniques ranges from a simple, low-cost water bath approach, irradiation with light or lasers, to advanced ultrasound and capacitive heating devices.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available