Abstract
Hyperthermia is a generic term for different techniques using heat in cancer therapies. Temperatures of about 42° Celsius in combination with chemo- or radiotherapy may improve the effectiveness of those treatments. Clinical benefit is shown in “standard hyperthermia” with tumour temperatures assessed during treatment. This systematic review thoroughly assesses the state of evidence concerning the benefits and side effects of electro hyperthermia or whole-body hyperthermia (“alternative hyperthermia”) in oncology. From 26 April 2021 to 09 May 2021, a systematic search was conducted searching five electronic databases (Embase, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Medline) to find studies concerning the use, effectiveness and potential harm of alternative medical hyperthermia therapy on cancer patients. From all 47,388 search results, 53 publications concerning 53 studies with 2006 patients were included in this systematic review. The patients were diagnosed with different types of cancer. The hyperthermic methods included whole-body hyperthermia (WBH) with different methods and electro hyperthermia (EH). The majority of the included studies were single-arm studies, counting in total 32 studies. Six studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT). In addition, one systematic review (SR) was found. The most critical endpoints were tumour response, survival data, pain relief, myelosuppression and toxicities. Outcome was heterogeneous, and considering the methodological limitations, clinical evidence for the benefit of alternative hyperthermia in cancer patients is lacking. Neither for whole-body hyperthermia nor for electro hyperthermia there is any evidence with respect to improvement of survival or quality of life in cancer patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
For over 100 years, physicians have attempted to treat cancer patients by heating tumour tissue. While certain techniques allow to directly kill cancer cells by heat, for whole-body and electro hyperthermia, the rationale is that an increase in the temperature of the tumour (40–43 °C) [1] induces changes in perfusion and re-oxygenation, produces heat-shock proteins, stimulates immunological activity and thus improves tumour response to radio- and chemotherapy [2, 3]. Previous researches in conventional medicine concluded that heat and radiation may have synergistic effects [4], because cells in late S phase are resistant to radiation and studies found that they were additionally most sensitive to heat in that phase [5]. In addition, tumour tissue is characterized by nutrient deprivation, limited oxygenation and highly acid conditions [6]. These properties are connected with low effects on tumour response to radiation [7]. Temperatures between 40 and 42 °C may increase perfusion and thereby oxygenation increases [8] with the possibility to overcome hypoxia-associated radio-resistance [9]. On the one hand, the higher sensitivity to chemotherapy is a result of elevated tumour blood flow, resulting in higher therapeutic drug concentrations in the tumour tissue [10]. A clear temperature-dependent increase in drug uptake has been shown in preclinical trials for example for cisplatin [11], carboplatin [12] or Melphalan [10, 13]. On the other hand, hyperthermia is able to increase the number of DNA strand breaks induced by chemotherapy [10, 12, 14] and may inhibit DNA repair [15]. Moreover, induction of heat-shock proteins (HSP) and immunomodulation has been described [16].
Nowadays, different methods of hyperthermia may be distinguished [1]. Well-established usage is hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) [17], the combination with chemotherapy in patients with sarcoma [18, 19] or the combination with radiotherapy for patients with cervical cancer who refuse or are not eligible for chemotherapy [20, 21]. Moreover, interstitial hyperthermia with brachytherapy is used for local applications [22]. Other methods like the activation of magnetic nanoparticles by an alternating magnetic field are currently being explored as a technique for targeted therapeutic heating of tumours [23]. Thermal ablation, which uses temperatures of above 100 °C to destroy tumour tissue directly, has to be differentiated from these types of hyperthermia treatment [24]. For hyperthermia treatments, the European Society of Hyperthermic Oncology (ESHO) and the Interdisziplinäre Arbeitsgruppe Hyperthermie (IAH) have defined quality standards [25,26,27,28,29,30]. A decisive criterion is that the temperature is measured directly in the tumour in order to verify heating of the target volume to the required 40–43 °C. This is an important point to differentiate between conventional and alternative methods, since no intra-tumoural temperature measurement is performed in the alternative hyperthermia methods.
Electro hyperthermia (EH) does not comply with the standards mentioned above and is widely spread. The method of capacitive coupling seems to be particularly popular because tumour cells may allegedly be heated selectively with this method. The therapy takes advantage of the supposedly special absorption rate of the extracellular fluid of the tumour. Tumour tissue is said to have a lower impedance than neighbouring tissue, so that energy is absorbed primarily by the tumour. This is supposed to achieve self-focusing [31]. A well-known representative of capacitive coupling is oncothermia [32]. This method uses radiofrequency waves with a frequency of 13.56 MHz [33].
Whole-body hyperthermia (WBH) has been evaluated in the 1950s to 1980s, but was left due to a negative risk/benefit ratio. So-called moderate whole-body hyperthermia is still used [34]. In alternative medicine, hyperthermia is used as WBH with moderate temperatures (about 39 °C) or high temperatures (more than 40 °C) [31]. Heating is reached by a warmed waterbed or by infrared radiation. Other alternative WBH procedures are the extracorporeal heating of blood or the induction of fever by bacterial toxins [3].
Therefore, we have included in this review only hyperthermia methods that do not belong to conventional medicine and titled these alternative methods. This includes all methods that heat the whole body either from the outside or from inside by using extracorporeal circulation or bacterial toxins. In addition, all hyperthermia methods with electric fields that do not meet the ESHO criteria are considered. Conventional other medical procedures with heat such as HIPEC [35], HIVEC [36] or thermoablation [24] are not part of our review. Moreover, hyperthermia generated by high-frequency radiofrequency waves or with microwaves [37] with an adequate real-time thermal dose monitoring [38, 39] meeting the requirements of the ESHO is also explicitly not part of our review [25,26,27,28,29,30].
The aim of our systematic review is to assess the evidence of these different alternative methods of external hyperthermia provided beyond the international standards.
Method
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1 based on a PICO model. Generally, all study types were included if they reported patient-relevant outcomes after the treatment of adult cancer patients with a complementary medical hyperthermia. Complementary hyperthermia methods included any modalities whether whole-body or electro hyperthermia, because exactly these do not meet the defined quality criteria of the European Society of Hyperthermic Oncology [25,26,27,28,29,30]. Any kind of comparison was eligible in this review. This includes watch and wait, standard care, sham and placebo. Because of the wide range of application fields, all cancer entities were included. Since little high-quality evidence was expected, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were included as well as controlled trials, one-armed studies, case reports and case series. Criteria for rejecting studies were primary prevention, grey literature, other publication types than primary investigation/reports (e.g. comments, letters, abstracts) and study population with more than 20% children (patients under the age of 18) if results of adult patients with cancer were not reported separately or precancerous conditions. Additionally, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were excluded if they reported only not patient-centred outcomes at all (only labour parameters). Furthermore, we included single-arm studies, case reports and case series if side effects were reported. Language restrictions were made to English and German. Studies that evaluated a combination of hyperthermia and other treatments versus none of the parts of the combination were not included as it would not be possible to determine the impact of hyperthermia. Nevertheless, we analysed the side effects of hyperthermia treatment in these 43 studies and reported the side effects, which were clearly attributed to hyperthermia treatment.
Study selection
A systematic review was conducted using five databases (Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO (EBSCO)) in April to May 2021. For each of these databases, a complex search strategy was developed consisting of a combination of MeshTerms, keywords and text words in different spellings connected to cancer and the different types of alternative hyperthermia therapy (Table 2). The search string was highly sensitive, since it was not restricted by filters of study or publication type. After importing the search results into EndNote X8, all duplicates were removed and a title–abstract screening was carried out by two independent reviewers (CL and SK). In case of disagreement, consensus was made by discussion. After that, all full texts were retrieved and screened again independently by both reviewers. When title and abstract did not have sufficient information for screening purposes, a full-text copy was retrieved as well. Additionally, bibliography lists of all retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies.
Assessment of risk of bias and methodological quality
All characteristics were assessed by two independent reviewers (CL and SK). In case of disagreement a third reviewer was consulted (JH) and consensus was made by discussion.
The risk of bias in the included studies was analysed with the AMSTAR-Checklist Version 2.0 for the SR [40], the SIGN-Checklist for controlled trials Version 2.0 [41], the SIGN-Checklist for cohort studies Version 3.0 [42] and the IHE-Checklist for single-arm studies and case series [43]. In addition, blinding of researchers, blinding of outcome assessment and comparability of groups before treatment, not only in terms of demographic variables but also concerning the outcomes, were examined.
The included studies were rated with the Oxford criteria. Additional criteria concerning methodology were size of population, application of power analysis, dealing with missing data and drop-out (report of drop-out reasons, application of intention-to-treat-analysis), adequacy of statistical tests (e.g. control of premises or multiple testing) and selective outcome reporting (report of all assessed outcomes with specification of statistical data as the p value).
Data extraction
Data extraction was performed by one reviewer (CL) and controlled by two independent reviewers (JD, JH). As a template for data extraction, the evidence tables from the national Guideline of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncological Patients of the German Guideline Program in Oncology [44] were used.
Results
The systematic research revealed 47,388 results. Eighteen studies were added by hand search. At first, duplicates were removed leaving 31,200 studies. Of these, 30,334 studies were rejected due to several reasons. After title–abstract screening 284 studies remained for full-text copy from which 231 studies were excluded due to following reasons: 16 studies did not use hyperthermia, another 125 studies did not use alternative hyperthermia, and in 43 studies, multiple interventions were administered at the same time so that an assessment of hyperthermia was not possible. Moreover, five studies were not published in English or German. For 11 abstracts, full text was not available, and four studies included only preclinical aspects. An inadequate article type (e.g. poster, letter to the editor, conference articles) was another reason for the exclusion of 27 studies. The flowchart of studies through the review can be seen in Fig. 1. A list of the studies excluded after full-text screening and the reasons for exclusion are presented in supplementary Table 3.
Finally, 96 publications were analysed in this review: 53 studies on alternative hyperthermia and 43 studies including multiple interventions which were only considered with respect to side effects of hyperthermia. Detailed characterization of the included studies may be seen in Figs. 2 and 3 and in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. In the 43 studies with multiple interventions, only the side effects were analysed. The characteristics of these studies can be seen in Table 7, the relevant adverse events in Table 8.
Characteristics of included studies
The first level of evidence included 14 studies, with one systematic review (SR), six randomized controlled trials (RCT), three controlled trials (CT) and four cohort studies with overall 1366 patients, from which 1137 were analysed, due to 229 drop-outs. The age of patients ranged from 17 to 86 years. In total, 955 participants were females, and 411 were males. In one study with 131 participants [50] data on age, gender and drop-outs were missing, whereas in the SR [45] data on age, gender, number of participants and drop-outs were missing. The publications by Minnaar et al. [51,52,53] used the same patient collective, but the endpoints were different, so the studies were analysed individually.
The second level of evidence consisted of 32 single-arm studies, one case series and six case reports comprising 712 patients. Of these, 332 were females and 363 were males. In one study, data on gender were missing for 17 patients [63]. The age of patients ranged from 12 to 86 years. The publications by Bruns et al. [61] and Bakhshandeh et al. [60] reported the same 27 patients. Because the focus was partially on different outcomes, these studies were analysed individually.
Overall, WBH was used in 33 studies (WBH in 24 studies [45,46,47,48, 59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74, 88, 92, 93, 96], ECC-WBH (WBH with extracorporeal circulation) in 7 studies [75,76,77,78, 89, 91, 97], in one study WBH and ECC-WBH each used for different groups [49] and in one study WBH (water-filtered infrared-A radiation) was administered together with therapeutic fevers [50]). EH was used in 20 studies [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87, 90, 94, 95]. Outcomes included tumour response, course of tumour markers, survival data, pain, quality of life or quality of recovery, body weight, ascites and fatigue. Further outcomes included haemodynamic, haematologic, serum chemistries, immunological and pH values, PaCO2 and respiratory rate. Other specific results contained measured temperatures, tumour oxygenation and heat-dose tolerances.
Risk of Bias in included studies
The main shortcomings of the studies are summarized in Fig. 2 (first level of evidence) and Fig. 3 (second level of evidence). Among the first level of evidence seven studies have an acceptable quality, six studies have a low quality, and one study is rated as unacceptable. The single-arm studies showed a quality from low to acceptable. A detailed description of the methodological quality of each study is provided in supplementary table 1 (first level of evidence) and supplementary table 2 (second level of evidence).
Endpoints in the first level of evidence (SR, RCTs, CTs and cohort studies)
Detailed information to the outcomes and side effects can be seen in Table 3.
Benefit and risks of hyperthermia in combination with systemic therapy on solid tumours (Whole-body hyperthermia)
In the SR by Lassche et al. [45] pre-treated patients with heterogeneous solid tumours were treated with WBH and CTx (chemotherapy). Among these, ovarian cancer (n = 3 studies), colorectal carcinoma (n = 2 studies), lung cancer (n = 2 studies) and sarcoma (n = 3 studies) were the most common entities analysed in this SR. In total, 13 studies included patients with various malignancies. These studies were then referred to as phase-I studies. CTx was used in all studies. These regimes were not uniform, but in most cases, platinum containing agents (n = 10 studies) or alkylating agents (n = 6 studies) were used. In the vast majority temperature reached 41.8 °C over a period of one hour and was generated by means of radiant heat. The response rate (including complete and partial response) was analysed in a total of 13 phase-I (various malignancies) and 14 phase-II (special malignancies) studies and varied between 12 and 89%. However, in the two studies with the highest response rates (86%, resp. 89%), the number of subjects was very small (n = 15, n = 18 resp.) and the pretreatment was described insufficiently. All the studies were single-arm studies. Grade 3 and grade 4 toxicities according to the CTAE criteria (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) occurred in almost all studies.
Recovery after surgery (Whole-body hyperthermia)
The RCT by Sulyok et al. [46] analysed the effect of WBH on the quality of recovery after curative colorectal cancer surgery (n = 18). The intervention group was sedated 3.5 h before the beginning of surgery and then treated with WBH by infrared radiation. The time at the target temperature of 39 °C was 2 h. Twenty-four hours after surgery, no significant difference was found for quality of recovery (QoR) overall or in quality of life (quality of recovery, global QoR-40, p = 0.81).
Effect of whole-body hyperthermia on the toxicity of chemotherapy (Whole-body hyperthermia)
The phase-II-CT by Hegewisch-Becker et al. [48] included 44 patients with adenocarcinoma of colon or rectum with progressive disease. Every second cycle of the biweekly chemotherapy regime, consisting of oxaliplatin, leucovorin and 5-fluoruracil, was combined with two hours of WBH with an estimated intra-tumoural temperature of 41.8 °C. WHO (World Health Organization)-grade three side effects of chemotherapy, including haematologic, gastrointestinal, peripheral neurological toxicities and fatigue, were rare and evenly balanced between the cycles with or without hyperthermia. Due to the crossover design, the comparability of the two groups is given, but carry-over effects cannot be ruled out.
Tumour response, abscopal response, survival and quality of life in cervical cancer patients (electro hyperthermia)
In the RCT by Minnaar et al. [51] 210 patients received RTx (external beam radiation) and cisplatin with or without EH. Heating reached estimated 42.5 °C and was generated via a capacitive heating device (EHY2000, Oncotherm) for two times a week. According to the authors, there was no need to measure the temperature, and the applied dose of EH should be controlled by means of the absorbed energy. Six-month local disease-free survival in the intervention group was significantly higher than in the control group (p = 0.003). Furthermore, a significant higher rate of complete metabolic responses was reported in the arm with the administration of EH (p = 0.005). A complete metabolic response as well in the primary tumour as in the lymph nodes within and outside the radiation field occurred significantly more often in the EH group (p = 0.013) [53]. The authors discussed that as abscopal effect which has been described in a few case reports in the literature due to radiotherapy. The quality of life (QoL) was determined using the EORTC questionnaires QLQ C30 and Cx24 6 weeks and 3 months post-treatment. Six weeks after treatment, mean change in cognitive function in the intervention group was significantly higher than in the control group (p = 0.031). Three months after treatment a significant improvement in social functioning (p = 0.049), emotional functioning (p = 0.017), fatigue (p = 0.037) and pain (p = 0.007) was reported in the EH group, compared to the control group [52]. No data on the target temperature in the tumour field are reported. In these studies, many calculations are performed. However, in the exact comparison of the intervention and control group regarding the therapy, these data are missing. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately compare the treatments between the two arms with and without hyperthermia. In addition, information about prior treatments is not specified and a description of possible additional co-interventions is missing. For the endpoints tumour response and local disease control, reasons for the drop-out of part of the participants are not given. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that for these endpoints only suitable patients were considered.
Tumour response and survival in breast cancer patients (electro hyperthermia)
In the RCT by Loboda et al. [54] 103 patients were treated with EH together with neoadjuvant CTx. The control group, containing 97 patients, received only the neoadjuvant CTx. Target temperatures were estimated to reached up to 38.8 °C and maintained for about 30 min. The intra-tumour temperature estimations were based on an unvalidated bioheat model combined with skin temperatures measured using a thermal imaging camera. Considering the individual values for the tumour response according to the RECIST criteria (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours), no significant difference between the two groups was described. The 10-year OS in the hyperthermia group was significantly longer (p < 0.009). Some points must be questioned in this study. The abstract reports that the intervention group had achieved a significantly higher rate of objective responses. An objective response included patients with a partial and complete response. However, when looking at the individual values for a complete response, partial response or stable disease, no significant difference can be found. Therefore, the significant difference in the abstract has to be doubted. Moreover, no information about the method of randomization is indicated. Another point for statistical criticism concerns the 10-year OS. No exact figures are given, for example, by how much longer survival was in the intervention group. The calculation of a significant difference is thus not comprehensible and remains vague. In addition, a comparison of the altered blood flow after treatment between the two groups is lacking.
Survival and tumour response in patients with glioblastoma (electro hyperthermia)
In the CT by Mahdavi et al. [55] glioblastoma patients were treated with CTx and RTx. The patients in the intervention arm received additional EH with estimated 41 °C (Celsius 42 +) two times a week for one hour each. Although tumour volume was significantly lower after treatment in the intervention group (p < 0.05), the OS between the two arms after 18 months was not significantly different (p = 0.55). Furthermore, the Karnofsky performance status did not differ significantly. In total, no information about the allocation method is given. Moreover, no comparison of the patient and tumour characteristics at baseline was conducted at all and in addition with the small number of participants (n = 38) an unequal distribution of subjects cannot be excluded. Additionally, side effects were reported only briefly.
Pathologic outcome and survival in patients with rectum carcinoma (electro hyperthermia)
In the retrospective cohort study by Kim et al. [58], 120 patients with rectum carcinoma received neoadjuvant RTx and CTx. The intervention group was treated additionally with EH (EHY 2000, Oncotherm). A hyperthermia session lasted one hour, and the number of sessions varied between one and twelve. Information about the targeted temperature or the temperature measurement is not given. A comparison of the two groups was done at baseline. Regarding the pathologic outcome (near total regression and total regression), no significant differences between arms were found, except for tumours with an initial primary volume more than 65 ml (p = 0.024). Considering the 2-year OS (p = 0.73), the 2-year disease-free survival (p = 0.054), the 2-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (p = 0.09) and the 2-year distant metastases-free survival (p = 0.083) no significant difference was found between the two groups. It has to be noticed that the dose of RTx was different between the treatment groups. In the intervention group the RTx-dose varied between 40 and 50.4 Gy, and in the control group, all participants received 50.4 Gy. Furthermore, it is not clear how the allocation to the different treatment groups was made.
Tumour response and survival of glioblastoma and astrocytoma patients (electro hyperthermia)
In the retrospective cohort study by Fiorentini et al. [56] 111 glioblastoma multiforme and 38 astrocytoma patients were divided into two groups. The intervention group (n = 52) was treated with EH (EHY2000, Oncotherm), whereas the control group (n = 97) received best supportive care together with CTx. The temperature in the EH group was between 40 and 42.5 °C and was only estimated. In the subgroup of astrocytoma patients, the results show an overall positive response, including complete response, partial response and stable disease in favour of the intervention (p < 0.005). The same applies for the subgroup of glioblastoma patients (p < 0.05). Moreover, the median OS was significantly better in both subgroups compared to the controls (p = 0.0065; p = 0.047). In the control arm, different CTx-regimes were administered; in contrast, the intervention arm received no CTx at all. With regard to the methodology of the study, there are several drawbacks. The functional recovery was only measured by ECOG grading. A comparison of the baseline data between control group and intervention group is missing. Therefore, it is not clear whether both arms can be compared at all.
Pain relief in lung cancer (electro hyperthermia)
In this retrospective cohort study by Kim et al. [57], the intervention group was treated additionally with EH (EHY2000, Oncotherm) two to three times (estimated 39–42 °C for about 60 min). Data collection was carried out at four different time points during 180 days after the start of the study. No significant differences could be found at any time for pain intensity and effective analgesic score (EAS), while the changes of the EAS over the time distinguished in dependence of the treatment (p = 0.038) with worse values in the intervention group in the first 60 days (p = 0.030). Exactly in these days, a significantly higher opioid analgesic dose was used in the intervention group (p = 0.022).
It must be critically noted that at baseline only 47.4% of the initially matched control group entered the study. Owing to this high drop-out, the comparability is limited and perhaps not given anymore. Despite that, the results suggest that EH leads to more pain immediately after the treatment.
Effect of preceding WBH on induced therapeutic fevers
In the retrospective phase-I-CT by Reuter et al. [50], participants (n = 131) were allocated to three different treatment groups and the desired target temperature was about estimated 39–40 °C. In group A1, with 44 participants, the bacterial extracts Serratia marcescens + Streptococcus pyogenes or Pseudomonas aeruginosa were used. In group A2 62 patients were treated with the same bacterial extracts, preceded by 30 min WBH (IRA 1000, Von Ardenne). In group B, containing 25 participants, therapeutic fever was induced by the application of combinations of approved drugs (Colibiogen, Iscador, Picibanil, Polyvaccinum forte, Strovac) and preceded by WBH (n = 25). Even though the authors conclude a reduction of side effects of some bacterial extracts through the preceding treatment with hyperthermia, no statistical data are given for this conclusion.
The drawbacks of this study are low and incomplete reporting regarding basic demographic data and the allocation procedure. Furthermore, the patient collective is very heterogeneous and perhaps also selective. Therefore, we classify the methodological quality of the study as unacceptable and refrain from further discussion of the results in the following.
Endpoints in the second level of evidence (single-arm studies, case series and case reports)
Further information to the individual results of each study is shown in Table 4 (outcomes in single-arm and case series) and Table 5 (outcomes in case reports).
Endpoint tumour response, pain, quality of life and fatigue
Three single-arm studies exist, which used alternative hyperthermia alone. In these trials no clinical tumour responses were documented [67, 72, 78]. In 22 single-arm studies and in one case series, alternative hyperthermia was used in combination with CTx or RTx. The incidence of a (complete response) CR ranged from 0% in 13 studies [60,61,62, 67, 72, 73, 75,76,77,78, 80, 83, 84] to 37.5% in a study with B-cell neoplasm with 8 participants [69]. In summary, due to the heterogeneous tumour entities and to the fact that all single-arm studies, which reported an improvement in tumour response, used alternative hyperthermia combined with CTx or RTx, and no conclusion can be drawn, whether the addition of hyperthermia to CTx or RTx has an effect on tumour response.
Pain as outcome was analysed in five studies including 106 patients. A reduction of pain was only seen in the 13 patients with objective tumour response, after a treatment which combined WBH with other treatments. Looking at ECC-WBH as part of therapy, 18% and 21% of the 36 participants reported a reduction of abdominal cancer pain [75]. Moreover, for EH as part of therapy for 33 patients, a decrease in median VAS score was reported [83]. In 23 patients, significant reduction in worst pain, least pain, average pain and current pain (p < 0.001 for all) was reported after treatment and was maintained during the next three months. While at baseline 74% of the patients were still taking analgesics, three months after treatment the rate dropped to 48% [87]. The attention patients received due to the hyperthermia intervention must be considered with respect to subjective outcomes such as pain. Considering adverse events, it has to be noted that pain was also caused by the EH treatment in one study [81] and 20% of the participants refused further EH sessions because of pain [83]. Overall, heterogeneous results on the endpoint pain were documented.
QoL was addressed in six studies including 117 patients. In one study with WBH changes in patient’s well-being were again documented for those patients whose disease responded to therapy [71]. Another study with 22 patients using WBH reported an improvement in QoL [61]. No significant differences in the QoL were seen from baseline to three months after EH with RTx in one study with 10 patients [83] and in another study [82] with initially 19 patients. Another study using EH with 23 participants [87] showed that except for nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, diarrhoea and financial problems, the patients’ quality of life improved significantly in all the functional scales within three months. Also these results may be explained in part by the attention received during the application of hyperthermia.
One study with 37 patients treated with WBH and CTx reported the outcome fatigue [71]. In total, 34 patients complained about grade one to two fatigue and one patient suffered from grade three fatigue prior to treatment. After treatment, all 16 patients with objective tumour responses reported, as is to be expected, an improved sense of well-being. On the other hand, fatigue is also ascribable to WBH, as reported in five studies [68, 69, 73, 74, 88], or to ECC-WBH, as documented in two studies [78, 89].
Endpoint survival
Survival data were documented in 15 single-arm studies and in one case series. Median overall survival was analysed in 14 studies, but explicit data for OS being calculated from first diagnoses can be found in 3 studies [60, 61, 81]. OS from first diagnoses ranged from 18.6 months [81] to 19.3 months [60, 61]. The TTP (time to progression) or the PFS (progression-free survival) measured in ten studies ranged from 2.5 months [82] to 6.8 months [60, 61]. The 1-year OS was part of analysis in five studies and ranged from 30% [86] to 68% [60, 61]. Due to lead time bias, the data have to be treated with caution. By reason of the design of single-arm studies, no data are available about the lifetime of a control group, so it is not possible to derive a clear statement in which way hyperthermia may influence survival data.
Adverse events
Detailed information to the different side effects can be found in Tables 3 and 6.
Related to WBH
In the SR by Lassche et al. [45], myelosuppression grade 3 and 4 occurred most frequently in studies using WBH along with CTx. Grade 3 and 4 side effects that were directly attributable to WBH therapy included cardiac arrhythmias, dermal side effects and kidney failure. Four patients died of treatment-related complications [48, 60, 66]. In the prospective cohort study by Gerke et al. [49] 43 patients with advanced sarcoma were divided into three groups (ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide)-CTx in combination with extracorporeal WBH (e-WBH), ICE-CTx with r-WBH by infrared radiation (Aquatherm) or only ICE-CTx). In both hyperthermia groups, the time at a target temperature of 41.8 °C was one hour. On the third day of the cycle, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decreased significantly more in the WBH groups than in the group treated with ICE-CTx alone and no difference between e-WBH and r-WBH was found (p = 0.364). Three weeks after the start of the CTx-cycle, GFR and the serum creatinine showed no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. In summary, nephrotoxicity sees to be aggravated by WBH immediately after chemotherapy especially when nephrotoxic agents are used along with WBH.
In the RCT by Robins et al. [47] 16 patients with different types of advanced cancer were treated with WBH (Aquatherm) alone during week 1. Thereafter, they were randomized to receive either Melphalan alone in the second week, Melphalan plus WBH for one hour at a target temperature of 41.8 °C in the fifth week or the reverse sequence. Across all CTx levels for Melphalan + WBH the average mean nadir WBC count was 35% and the mean nadir platelet count was 20% lower compared to Melphalan alone (p = 0.006, p = 0.04), denoting that myelosuppression was more pronounced in cycles with WBH.
Lesions of the skin were a frequent side effect. In one study with 9 participants treated with WBH, 60% showed a transient erythema and in one subject two round thermal lesions (grade 2) appeared [46], respectively; 3 of 44 patients showed pressure scores [48]. In the lower class of evidence skin lesions, most pronounced in grade 1 were also a frequent side effect [59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 71,72,73,74, 88]. The lesions included blisters, erythema, burns and ulcers especially at contact points with the heating pads. Besides waterbed and infrared rays, WBH also uses insulating measures and thermal blankets. These can then cause the skin lesions.
According to the authors, herpes simplex infections were attributed to WBH. In one study 39% were detected with mucosal herpes infections, responsive to acyclovir [48] or such infections (grade 1) occurred in 7 of 16 patients [47]. In the lower class of evidence herpes infections were also often reported [65, 68,69,70, 73, 74] and the incidence ranged from 17% [70] to 73% [74].
In the RCT by Robins et al. [47] a transient increase in liver function tests (grade 2) was seen in 3 patients and additionally low-grade fever (< 24 h post-treatment) occurred to 3 patients. While taking a closer look at serum chemistries in the lower class of evidence, liver enzymes showed a significant elevation 24 h post-WBH [74], but returned to normal range at follow-up [74, 88]. Another study reported a transient elevation in liver enzymes in 25% [67].
A fatigue syndrome grade 3 and 4 was noted in a quarter of the patients in cycles with WBH; compared to cycles without WBH, grade 3 and 4 occurred in 9% [48]. In the lower evidence class, fatigue was mentioned likewise [68, 69, 73, 74, 88] and the incidence ranged from 14% [88] to 100% [74]. Transient cardiac arrhythmias with electrocardiographic signs of myocardial ischaemia (WHO grade 3) concerned to 5 of overall 44 patients in the CT by Hegewish-Becker [48]. In single-arm studies, case series and case reports, cardio-circulatory events were reported as arrhythmic episodes [59, 60, 68, 74, 88], depression of blood pressure [68, 70, 73, 74, 88] or an increase in heart rate [67, 73, 74, 88].
In addition, in studies of the lower class of evidence, following adverse events were mentioned, which were related to WBH, according to the authors. After treatment, some patients suffered from slight headache (between grade one and two) [65, 68,69,70, 72]. Neurological adverse events were peripheral neuropathy of the femoral, peroneal and ulnar nerve [73, 88], psycho-motoric dysfunctions (grade one and two) [59], convulsions, hallucination (grade one and two) and severe rhabdomyolysis [73]. Further side effects, related to WBH, included post-hyperthermia fevers, lasting for a maximum of 36 h after treatment [65, 68, 73, 88], urinary tract infections [65, 68, 69], nausea and vomiting at most grade two [67, 68, 73], diarrhoeas between grade one and two [65, 70, 73, 88] renal failure grade one or two [59] and calf thrombophlebitis [68].
Related to therapeutic fever
In one study by Reuter et al., patients experienced nausea and vomiting, headache, back pain, circulatory reactions and weakness the following days [50].
Related to ECC-WBH
Side effects ascribable to that modality were reported in studies of the lower class of evidence. Probably ascribable to ECC-WBH were 4 deaths (24%) due to intra-abdominal bleeding, 1 death due to lung oedema and to 2 due to hepato-renal syndrome [75]. Proteinuria grade 1 to grade 3 was reported in three patients [89]. Transient liver failure occurred in 1 patient [89, 91] and hepatitis was detected in 3 participants [77]. During ECC-WBH alone elevation of bilirubin, albumin, lipase, AST (aspartate aminotransferase), ALT (alanine transaminase), γGT (gamma-glutamyl transferase) could be found [89] or AST, ALT and bilirubin significantly increased 24 h after treatment in another study [91]. Moreover, perioral herpes infections occurred [76, 77, 89]. Skin lesions included burns [89], pressure scores [76, 77] or a skin imprint [78]. Several studies reported side effects which were most probably due to cardiovascular stress such as mild anasarca [76, 77], episodes of hypotension grade two [89, 91] or the significant increase of the heart rate during heating [76, 77, 89, 91]. Moreover, the administration of catecholamines or crystalloid solutions were necessary [76, 77, 89, 91]. Adaptation to warming during ECC treatment may well be associated with circulatory difficulties and is therefore not suitable for a wide patient population. Further side effects included an infection of the shunt necessitated the removal of graft in 1 patient [75], changes in coagulation parameters [77, 89, 91]. Fatigue [89], nausea [77, 89], vomiting [77] and diarrhoea [76, 77] were documented with grade 1 or 2. Moreover, between slight to severe weakness of muscles [75], reversible paresthesia grade 2 [77] and post-treatment fever grade 1 [89] occurred. In the combination ECC-WBH with CTx 11% [76], 8%, respectively, [77] of the participants developed acute renal failure, requiring haemodialysis and nephrotoxicity was reported in 42% of the participants [77]. Neurological problems included encephalopathy in one patient, who died 3 weeks later, but according to the authors, the death was not attributed to treatment [78].
Related to EH
In the RCT by Minnaar et al. [51], adipose tissue burns occurred in 9.5% and pain in 9% of patients treated with EH. In the cohort study by Kim et al. [57] in the first 60 days after treatment, a significantly higher opioid dose was used in the group treated with hyperthermia (p = 0.022). Comparing the arms in the RCT by Loboda et al. [54] which included treatment with and without EH, there were no differences in haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities or liver and kidney function. In the RCT by Mahdavi et al. [55] EH-related side effects were mild headache with no necessity for any additional medication. In the RCT by Kim et al. [58] fat necrosis and hot spots occurred in 1 patient each. Comparing arm A, which received EH in addition to CTx and RTx, with arm B, the number of side effects did not differ significantly, except for gastrointestinal side effects. These occurred significantly more frequently in arm B (p = 0.01). Adverse events caused by EH in the RCT by Fiorentini et al. [56] included headache, scalp burn and seizures. More than an hour after treatment, seizures occurred in 4 additional patients.
In the lower class of evidence, local pain grade 1 occurred to 20%, grade 2 was documented in 60% [81], and in the study by Yu et al., 20% of the participants refused further EH sessions because of pain [83]. Typical symptoms of increased intracranial pressure, e.g. nausea (grade one to two), confusion (grade one to three), somnolence (grade two to three) and focal neurological symptoms, for example aphasia (grade three to four) or hemiparesis (grade two to three), were documented in 1 study [81]. Furthermore, 87% of the patients suffered from headache up to grade 4 in 1 study [81].
Adverse events in studies with multiple interventions
A brief characterization of these studies can be found in Table 7, and information about the adverse events related to the hyperthermia treatment in Table 8.
Related to WBH
The side effects are in accordance with the prior reported adverse events. The incidence of the skin lesions was up to 100% [99, 137] and the severity was up to grade 3 [99, 135, 137]. Herpes infections were a common side effect [99, 126, 127, 137], and the incidence was also up to 100% [99]. Neurological side effects included encephalopathy in overall 3 patients [112, 137], which reversed spontaneously. Moreover slight CNS (central nerve system) dysfunctions or disorientations [112, 137], neuropathy or transitional psychosis [137] was reported. During treatment tachycardia [137] or tachyarrhythmia [112] occurred. Fatigue as an adverse event was noticed in two studies, and the incidence ranged from 24% [126] to 100% [99]. Further side effects included headache [126], haemodynamic depression [137], nausea and vomiting [126, 127], transient elevation in liver function tests [127] and pain [137].
Related to EH
Skin lesions consisted of local redness, subcutaneous fibrosis of fatty tissue and slight skin burns [102, 124, 125, 130, 141]. A small number of participants suffered from short-term asthenia, headache, abdominal or local pain and chest pressure [124, 125, 130, 141]. In the study by Yu et al. 30% of the patients refused further EH sessions, mainly because of pain. To complete treatment, the administration of opioids was necessary [139]. Further adverse events related to EH included vomiting or tachycardia [124].
Discussion
We categorized the studies into two levels of evidence. The higher evidence level one includes SR, RCTs, CTs and cohort studies, whereas evidence level two reports on single-arm studies, case series and case reports.
Studies evidence level one with methodologically acceptable evaluation
Potential benefits of WBH
The SR by Lassche et al. [45] showed no benefit of the invasive WBH treatment. Due to the absence of two-arm studies in the SR, the effect of WBH as addendum on tumour response rate is only speculative. With the numerous grade 3 to 4 side effects, attributable to WBH, the risk/benefit ratio clearly shifts the side of the risks.
Potential benefits of EH
In the RCT by Loboda et al. [54] the 10-year OS in the arm with EH was significantly higher, although no significant difference was seen in tumour response. It must be critically noted with regard to the 10-year OS that no exact numbers are given, but only illustrations, from which no exact data can be read off. In addition, no information about the method of randomization is given. In the RCT by Minnaar et al. [52] the intervention group showed significant improvements in some sub-items (social functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and pain) of the EORTC questionnaire compared to control. Furthermore, the group treated additionally with EH achieved significantly better values at six-month local disease-free survival, local disease control and tumour response. The reasons for the missing data of part of the participants are not stated; therefore, selective reporting cannot be excluded. Additionally, with such a high drop-out rate and without any reasons given, the comparability of the groups cannot further be assumed. It is therefore possible that healthier or more motivated patients remained in the study. Those patients then may achieve a better result and do not constitute a representative sample [51]. Although, six months after treatment, the tumour volume in the intervention group was lower than in the control group in the RCT by Mahdavi et al. [55], neither OS after 18 months nor the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale showed any benefit. However, due to missing comparison of the patient and tumour characteristics at baseline, it is unclear whether the groups already differed from the beginning and the intervention group may have had better values all along. Therefore, no valid interpretation of these results is possible. In addition, a rationale for the allocation to the two treatment arms is not specified [55].
Studies evidence level one with methodologically low evaluation
Potential benefit of WBH
WBH did not improve the quality of recovery, as no significant difference was found in the RCT by Sulyok et al. [46] for the quality of recovery after surgery overall or in the dimensions assessed (global QoR-40, p = 0.81). On the other hand, despite the fact that in vitro data demonstrated that hyperthermia distinctively enhances the cytotoxic side effects of oxaliplatin [142], and the incidence of toxicities most likely related to chemotherapy and was hardly different between the chemotherapy cycles treated with or without WBH in the phase-II-CT by Hegewish-Becker et al. [48].
Potential benefit of EH
In the retrospective cohort study by Kim et al. [57] the EAS over the time showed worse values in the EH group and a significant higher opioid dose within the first 60 days. In another retrospective cohort study by Kim et al. [58] treating the intervention group with EH, no significant difference was found in the pathologic outcome. Moreover, no difference was seen in 2-year OS. The only significant difference was reported in the EH group in the two-year locoregional recurrence-free survival. In the retrospective cohort study by Fiorentini et al. [56] the intervention group was treated only with EH, whereas the control arm, received best supportive care together with CTx. The overall response rate and the median OS were significantly better in the hyperthermia group, although the difference in survival was only a few months. With regard to the methodology of the study, the results must be considered with caution. No demographic parameters comparing the intervention and control group at baseline as well as information on prior treatments are not specified. Even if a benefit of hyperthermia treatment is first conveyed in these retrospective studies, this cannot be considered an evidence-based benefit due to the methodological limitations of the studies.
Adverse events in evidence level one and well-reported adverse events in evidence level two
Side effects related to WBH/ECC-WBH
The SR of Lassche et al. [45] points to several grade 3 and 4 toxicities, the invasiveness of the procedure, the elaborate supportive care and the high costs. Moreover, the RCT by Robins et al. [47] showed that myelosuppression was more pronounced in cycles with WBH. One major problem of hyperthermia is organ toxicity as nephrotoxicity. Special care should be taken with patients with restricted kidney function [49]. Other reported adverse events included cardio-circulatory stress during WBH or ECC-WBH. So patients with higher grade of cardiac arrhythmias have to be excluded [3] as arrhythmic episodes occurred regularly [59, 60, 62, 68, 74, 88, 137] and heart rate increased [67, 73, 74, 76, 77, 88, 89, 91] during heating. Therefore, cardiologic examinations must be carried out to prove the patients’ cardio-pulmonary capacity before treatment and continuous cardiac monitoring during WBH is necessary [62]. To maintain a sufficient blood pressure, crystalloid solutions and/or catecholamines were needed during plateau phase [76, 77, 89, 91]. Furthermore, patients with markedly restricted hepatic capacity have to be precluded [3], because during WBH, hepatic dysfunction was mentioned [60, 66, 70, 127] or a transient elevation in liver enzymes occurred [67]. Another severe side effect is the more pronounced myelosuppression in cycles with WBH [47]. In addition, the application of WBH for patients with cerebral or spinal metastases should be critically reconsidered, because there may be the risk of an increase in intracranial or intraspinal pressure [3, 97]. In particular, the use of ECC-WBH should be reconsidered critically, as due to the high invasiveness 4 deaths from overall 76 patients treated were attributed to ECC-WBH [75]. Additionally, elevation of liver enzymes occurred [89, 91] and participants developed acute renal failure, requiring haemodialysis [76, 77]. Moreover, most of the patients needed analgo-sedation or deep anaesthesia during WBH or ECC-WBH [3].
Side effects related to EH
A somewhat milder side effect profile was seen with EH treatment. EH-related side effects were mild headache with no necessity for any additional medication [55]. Other adverse events included fat necrosis or hot spots [51, 58], scalp burn, seizures [56] and pain [51]. In the cohort study by Kim et al. [52] a significantly higher opioid analgesic dose was used in the group treated with hyperthermia. (p = 0.022) or participants refused further EH sessions because of pain [83].
Risk/benefit ratio
When considering the risk/benefit ratio, it becomes apparent that, due to the very heterogeneous results and methodological limitations of the included studies, clinical evidence for the benefit of alternative hyperthermia in cancer patients is still lacking. Based on the current research, the adverse events outweigh the potential but yet unproven benefits of alternative hyperthermia.
Absence of intra-tumoural temperature measurement in alternative hyperthermia
Moreover, the term hyperthermia is misleading because it is not clearly defined. Based on the rationale behind hyperthermia, some clinical studies with conventional hyperthermia were able to show evidence-based benefits for selected types of cancer [143]. These hyperthermia treatments were carried out with defined quality standards, including an intra-tumoural temperature measurement every minute, a exactly determination of the treatment area previous via MR (magnetic resonance) or CT (computer tomography) or the presence of an engineer or physicist during treatment [144]. Invasive temperature probes represent the gold standard in thermometry. For non-invasive monitoring, CT-, MR- and ultrasound-based thermometry methods have been developed although these do not deliver the same accuracy [145, 146]. Exact temperature control is essential in hyperthermia, on the one hand to avoid side effects [147], on the other hand to reach the desired target range, with regard to the close dose–effect relationship [145, 148]. Provider of alternative hyperthermia concepts also advertise with the same mentioned theoretical principles, but the implementation of uniform rules is missing. In the present review, information about temperature measurements is lacking in 15 studies [46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 64, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 94,95,96,97]. In the studies by Minnaar et al. [51,52,53], the authors do not consider it necessary to measure the temperature. In only one study with electro hyperthermia thermal mapping was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the European Society of Hyperthermic Oncology, according to the authors, but further information about the exact way of measuring temperature is missing [25,26,27,28,29,30, 80]. In one study WBH temperature was measured constantly by a probe placed in the centre of the tumour [93]. In another study with EH intra-tumoural temperature was approximately determined using a thermal imaging camera [54]. The other studies did not measure the intra-tumoural temperature directly but only offered indirect methods for which clinical data are missing [47,48,49, 59,60,61,62,63, 65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78, 83, 86, 88,89,90,91,92].
Limitations of this work
Some limitations of this systematic review must be mentioned. First, we focused on adults, omitting literature that included more than 20% children as patients. This is however not a limitation as paediatric patients generally form an even more heterogeneous population than adult patients, making solid conclusions about clinical effects of alternative hyperthermia even more challenging. So excluding these categories is not expected to change our conclusions. Also, studies that were not in English or German were also not considered. However, including these would have made our in-depth analysis of content and methodology too challenging.
Conclusion
No clear statement regarding the efficacy of hyperthermia treatment in complementary medicine on cancer patients may be derived from published studies. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary, which compare groups treated with standard cancer therapy to groups treated with alternative hyperthermia along with standard cancer therapy to draw conclusions whether alternative hyperthermia influences tumour response, survival data or the quality of life and to find out, which side effects are exactly assignable to hyperthermia. Due to this and to the heterogeneous results of the systematic review regarding the outcomes pain and quality of life, no benefit of alternative hyperthermia has been shown and no evidence-based indications can be stated. The adverse events especially of WBH and ECC-WBH may overweigh the potential benefit. Physicians should not prescribe WBH or ECC-WBH in case of comorbidities like renal or hepatic diseases, cardiac arrhythmias, cardia-pulmonal insufficiency, increased intracranial or intraspinal pressure or existing aspects impeding the essential analogue sedation or anaesthesia.
Due to the highly different methods offered with the same terminus hyperthermia, it is especially difficult for patients to distinguish between scientifically proven hyperthermia treatments and alternative hyperthermia methods.
To help patients and physicians who are not experts in oncology, institutions which offer or evaluate conventional hyperthermia treatments should clearly differentiate their procedures from the offers of alternative providers in words also comprehensible for patients.
References
Weg-Remers S. Hyperthermie: wärme gegen krebs. In: Krebsinformationsdienst des Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrums. 2018. https://www.krebsinformationsdienst.de/behandlung/hyperthermie.php#inhalt17. Accessed from 2 Jul 2019.
Datta NR, Ordóñez SG, Gaipl US, et al. Local hyperthermia combined with radiotherapy and-/or chemotherapy: recent advances and promises for the future. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41(9):742–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.05.009.
Hossfeld DK, Hegewisch-Becker S, Jäger E, et al. Ganzkörper-hyperthermie in kombination mit chemotherapie. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2000;97:2941–6.
Abe M, Hiraoka M. Localized hyperthermia and radiation in cancer therapy. Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med. 1985;47(4):347–59. https://doi.org/10.3109/rab.47.4.347.
Kim SH, Kim JH, Hahn EW. The enhanced killing of irradiated HeLa Cells in synchronous culture by hyperthermia. Radiat Res. 1976;66(2):337–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/3574401.
Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res. 1989;49(23):6449–65.
Horsman MR, Overgaard J. Hyperthermia: a potent enhancer of radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007;19(6):418–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2007.03.015.
Song CW, Park HJ, Lee CK, Griffin R. Implications of increased tumor blood flow and oxygenation caused by mild temperature hyperthermia in tumor treatment. Int J Hyperth. 2005;21(8):761–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656730500204487.
Rockwell S, Dobrucki IT, Kim EY, Marrison ST, Vu VT. Hypoxia and radiation therapy: past history, ongoing research, and future promise. Curr Mol Med. 2009;9(4):442–58. https://doi.org/10.2174/156652409788167087.
Oei AL, Kok HP, Oei SB, et al. Molecular and biological rationale of hyperthermia as radio- and chemosensitizer. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2020.01.003.
Ohtsubo T, Saito H, Tanaka N, et al. Enhancement of cisplatin sensitivity and platinum uptake by 40 °C hyperthermia in resistant cells. Cancer Lett. 1997;119(1):47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3835(97)00250-4.
Los G, Smals OA, van Vugt MJ, et al. A rationale for carboplatin treatment and abdominal hyperthermia in cancers restricted to the peritoneal cavity. Cancer Res. 1992;52(5):1252–8.
Clark J, Grabs AJ, Parsons PG, Smithers BM, Addison RS, Roberts MS. Melphalan uptake, hyperthermic synergism and drug resistance in a human cell culture model for the isolated limb perfusion of melanoma. Melanoma Res. 1994;4(6):365–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008390-199412000-00004.
Krawczyk PM, Eppink B, Essers J, et al. Mild hyperthermia inhibits homologous recombination, induces BRCA2 degradation, and sensitizes cancer cells to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(24):9851–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101053108.
Oei AL, Vriend LE, Crezee J, Franken NA, Krawczyk PM. Effects of hyperthermia on DNA repair pathways: one treatment to inhibit them all. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0462-0.
Repasky EA, Evans SS, Dewhirst MW. Temperature matters! And why it should matter to tumor immunologists. Cancer Immunol Res. 2013;1(4):210–6. https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.Cir-13-0118.
Hoerbelt R, Griessemer A, Gehron J, Padberg W. HIPEC-verfahren bei der behandlung der peritonealkarzinose - standortbestimmung, aktuelle datenlage. In: Bundesverband der Deutschen Chirurgen. 2014. https://www.bdc.de/hipec-verfahren-bei-der-behandlung-der-peritonealkarzinose-standortbestimmung-aktuelle-datenlage/. Accessed from 21 Aug 2019.
Issels RD, Lindner LH, Verweij J, et al. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with regional hyperthermia for localised high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised phase 3 multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(6):561–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70071-1.
Issels RD, Lindner LH, Verweij J, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus regional hyperthermia on long-term Outcomes among patients with localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma: the EORTC 62961-ESHO 95 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(4):483–92. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4996.
Zee JVD, González DG. The dutch deep hyperthermia trial: results in cervical cancer. Int J Hyperth. 2002;18(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656730110091919.
Administration USFaD. Summary safety and probable benefit: BSD 2000. 2022. From: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/H090002B.pdf. Accessed from 16 Apr 2022.
Ott O. Kombination hyperthermie und brachytherapie. In: Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Erlangen. 2022. https://www.strahlenklinik.uk-erlangen.de/patienten/unsere-behandlungsverfahren/hyperthermie/interstitielle-hyperthermie/. Accessed from 21 Mar 2022.
Hervault A, Thanh NT. Magnetic nanoparticle-based therapeutic agents for thermo-chemotherapy treatment of cancer. Nanoscale. 2014;6(20):11553–73. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4nr03482a.
Vogl JT. Lokalablative verfahren bei tumormetastasen: techniken, indikationen und klinischer stellenwert. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(39):27–9. https://doi.org/10.3238/PersOnko.2015.09.25.07.
Lagendijk J, Rhoon G, Hornsleth S, et al. Esho quality assurance guidelines for regional hyperthermia. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 1998;14:125–33. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656739809018219.
Dobsicek Trefna H, Schmidt M, van Rhoon GC, et al. Quality assurance guidelines for interstitial hyperthermia. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2019;36(1):277–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2018.1564155.
Dobsicek Trefna H, Crezee J, Schmidt M, et al. Quality assurance guidelines for superficial hyperthermia clinical trials: II. Technical requirements for heating devices Leitlinien zur Qualitatssicherung der lokalen Hyperthermie in klinischen Studien: II. Tech Anforderungen Heizgerate. 2017;193(5):351–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-017-1106-0.
Trefná HD, Crezee H, Schmidt M, et al. Quality assurance guidelines for superficial hyperthermia clinical trials: I. Clinical requirements. Int J Hyperth. 2017;33(4):471–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2016.1277791.
Bruggmoser G, Bauchowitz S, Canters R, et al. Quality assurance for clinical studies in regional deep hyperthermia. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011;187(10):605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-011-1145-x.
Bruggmoser G, Bauchowitz S, Canters R, et al. Guideline for the clinical application, documentation and analysis of clinical studies for regional deep hyperthermia: quality management in regional deep hyperthermia. Strahlenther Onkol. 2012;188(Suppl 2):198–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0176-2.
Wirth V, Schuermann M. Hyperthermie – eine innovative Therapieoption der Integrativen Onkologie. Swiss J Integr Med. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1159/000302147.
Hegyi G, Szigeti GP, Szász A. Hyperthermia versus oncothermia: cellular effects in complementary cancer therapy. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/672873.
Szasz DO. Oncothermia method. Basic principles of the method. In. Oncotherm company website. 2022. https://oncotherm.com/oncothermia-method?_ga=2.40333287.472261313.1649249391-879433279.1649249391. Accessed from 06 Apr 2022.
Roussakow S. The history of hyperthermia rise and decline. Conf Papers Med. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/428027.
Goodman MD, McPartland S, Detelich D, Saif MW. Chemotherapy for intraperitoneal use: a review of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Gastroint oncol. 2016;7(1):45–57. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2015.111.
van Valenberg H, Colombo R, Witjes F. Intravesical radiofrequency-induced hyperthermia combined with chemotherapy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Int J Hyperth. 2016;32(4):351–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2016.1140232.
Fatehi, D. Technical quality of deep hyperthermia using the BSD-2000. In: Uitgeverij Box Press, Oisterwijk, the Netherlands. 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10546. Accessed from 14 Apr 2022.
VilasBoas-Ribeiro I, Curto S, van Rhoon GC, Franckena M, Paulides MM. MR thermometry accuracy and prospective imaging-based patient selection in MR-guided hyperthermia treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancers. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13143503.
Paulides MM, Dobsicek Trefna H, Curto S, Rodrigues DB. Recent technological advancements in radiofrequency- and microwave-mediated hyperthermia for enhancing drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020;163–4:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2020.03.004.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008.
Sleith CSIGN. Methodology checklist 2: controlled trials. Version. 2012;2:1–3.
Sleith CSIGN. Methodology checklist 3: cohort studies. Version. 2012;3:1–4.
Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist. In: Institute of Health Economics. 2014. https://www.ihe.ca/research-programs/rmd/cssqac/cssqac-about. Accessed from 10 Nov 2020.
Follmann M. Templates zur erstellung von leitlinien. In: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF). 2019. https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/methodik/leitlinientemplates/. Accessed 11 May 2019.
Lassche G, Van Herpen CML, Crezee J. Whole-body hyperthermia in combination with systemic therapy in advanced solid malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;139:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.04.023.
Sulyok I, Fleischmann E, Stift A, et al. Effect of preoperative fever-range whole-body hyperthermia on immunological markers in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(5):754–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes248.
Robins HI, Rushing D, Kutz M, et al. Phase I clinical trial of melphalan and 41.8 degrees C whole-body hyperthermia in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1997;15(1):158–64.
Hegewisch-Becker S, Gruber Y, Corovic A, et al. Whole-body hyperthermia (41.8 degrees C) combined with bimonthly oxaliplatin, high-dose leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil 48-hour continuous infusion in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2002;13(8):1197–204.
Gerke P, Filejski W, Robins HI, Wiedemann GJ, Steinhoff J. Nephrotoxicity of ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE) alone or combined with extracorporeal or radiant-heat-induced whole-body hyperthermia. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2000;126(3):173–7.
Reuter URM, Oettmeier R, Hobohm U. Safety of therapeutic fever induction in cancer patients using approved PAMP drugs. Transl Oncol. 2018;11(2):330–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2018.01.019.
Minnaar CA, Kotzen JA, Naidoo T, et al. The effect of modulated electro-hyperthermia on local disease control in HIV-positive and -negative cervical cancer women in South Africa: early results from a phase III randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217894.
Minnaar CA, Kotzen JA, Tunmer M, et al. Analysis of the effects of mEHT on the treatment-related toxicity and quality of life of HIV-positive cervical cancer patients. Int J Hyperth. 2020;37(1):263–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2020.1737253.
Minnaar CA, Kotzen JA, Ayeni OA, Vangu M-D-T, Baeyens A. Potentiation of the abscopal effect by modulated electro-hyperthermia in locally advanced cervical cancer patients. Front Oncol. 2020;10:376. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00376.
Loboda A, Syvak L, Golovko T, et al. Efficacy of combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy and regional inductive moderate hyperthermia in the treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533033820963599.
Mahdavi SR, Khalafi L, Shivaliloo S, et al. Thermal enhancement effect on chemo-radiation of Glioblastoma multiform. Int J Radiat Res. 2020;18(2):255–62. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.18.2.255.
Fiorentini G, Sarti D, Mattioli G, et al. Modulated electrohyperthermia in integrative cancer treatment for relapsed malignant glioblastoma and astrocytoma: retrospective multicenter controlled study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735418812691.
Kim Y-P, Choi Y, Kim S, et al. Conventional cancer treatment alone or with regional hyperthermia for pain relief in lung cancer: a case-control study. Complement Ther Med. 2015;23(3):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2015.04.004.
Kim S, Cha J, You SH, Lee JH. Beneficial effects of modulated electro-hyperthermia during neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Hyperth. 2021;38(1):144–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2021.1877837.
Atmaca A, Al-Batran S-E, Neumann A, et al. Whole-body hyperthermia (WBH) in combination with carboplatin in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer - a phase II study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(2):384–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.11.001.
Bakhshandeh A, Bruns I, Traynor A, et al. Ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide combined with 41.8 degrees C whole body hyperthermia for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer (Amst Neth). 2003;39(3):339–45.
Bruns I, Kohlmann T, Wiedemann GJ, Bakhshandeh A. Evaluation of the therapeutic benefit of 41.8 degrees C whole body hyperthermia plus ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE) for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma using the Modified Brunner-Score (MBS). 2004; 58(4):210–6.
Bakshandeh-Bath A, Stoltz AS, Homann N, Wagner T, Stolting S, Peters SO. Preclinical and clinical aspects of carboplatin and gemcitabine combined with whole-body hyperthermia for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2009;29(8):3069–77.
Katschinski DM, Wiedemann GJ, Mentzel M, Mulkerin DL, Touhidi R, Robins HI. Optimization of chemotherapy administration for clinical 41.8 degrees C whole body hyperthermia. Cancer Lett. 1997;115(2):195–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3835(97)04747-2.
Richel O, Vörding PZVS, Rietbroek R, et al. Phase II study of carboplatin and whole body hyperthermia (WBH) in recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95(3):680–5.
Westermann AM, Grosen EA, Katschinski DM, et al. A pilot study of whole body hyperthermia and carboplatin in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer (Oxf Engl). 2001;37(9):1111–7.
Westermann AM, Wiedemann GJ, Jager E, et al. A systemic hyperthermia oncologic working group trial. Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide combined with 41.8 degrees C whole-body hyperthermia for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Oncology. 2003;64(4):312–21.
Robins HI, Dennis WH, Neville AJ, et al. A nontoxic system for 41.8 degrees C whole-body hyperthermia: results of a Phase I study using a radiant heat device. Cancer Res. 1985;45(8):3937–44.
Robins HI, Longo WL, Lagoni RK, et al. Phase I trial of lonidamine with whole body hyperthermia in advanced cancer. Cancer Res. 1988;48(22):6587–92.
Robins HI, Longo WL, Steeves RA, et al. Adjunctive therapy (whole body hyperthermia versus lonidamine) to total body irradiation for the treatment of favorable B-cell neoplasms: a report of two pilot clinical trials and laboratory investigations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;18(4):909–20.
Robins HI, Cohen JD, Schmitt CL, et al. Phase I clinical trial of carboplatin and 41.8 degrees C whole-body hyperthermia in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1993;11(9):1787–94.
Bull JMC, Scott GL, Strebel FR, et al. Fever-range whole-body thermal therapy combined with cisplatin, gemcitabine, and daily interferon-alpha: a description of a phase I-II protocol. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2008;24(8):649–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656730802104740.
Kraybill WG, Olenki T, Evans SS, et al. A phase I study of fever-range whole body hyperthermia (FR-WBH) in patients with advanced solid tumours: correlation with mouse models. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2002;18(3):253–66.
Barlogie B, Corry PM, Yip E, et al. Total-body hyperthermia with and without chemotherapy for advanced human neoplasms. Cancer Res. 1979;39(5):1481–9.
Gerad H, van Echo DA, Whitacre M, et al. Doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and whole body hyperthermia for treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 1984;53(12):2585–91.
Koga S, Maeta M, Shimizu N, et al. Clinical effects of total-body hyperthermia combined with anticancer chemotherapy for far-advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer. 1985;55(8):1641–7.
Wiedemann GJ, d’Oleire F, Knop E, et al. Ifosfamide and carboplatin combined with 41.8 degrees C whole-body hyperthermia in patients with refractory sarcoma and malignant teratoma. Cancer Res. 1994;54(20):5346–50.
Wiedemann GJ, Robins HI, Gutsche S, et al. Ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE) combined with 41.8 degrees C whole body hyperthermia in patients with refractory sarcoma. Eur J Cancer (Oxf Engl 1990). 1996;32A(5):888–92.
Steinhart CR, Ash SR, Gingrich C, Sapir D, Keeling GN, Yatvin MB. Effect of whole-body hyperthermia on AIDS patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma: a pilot study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol Off Publ Int Retrovirol Assoc. 1996;11(3):271–81.
Douwes FR. Thermo-chemotherapy of the advanced pancreas carcinoma. Biol Med. 2006;35(3–4):126–30.
Gadaleta-Caldarola G, Infusino S, Galise I, et al. Sorafenib and locoregional deep electro-hyperthermia in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study. Oncol Lett. 2014;8(4):1783–7. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2376.
Wismeth C, Dudel C, Pascher C, et al. Transcranial electro-hyperthermia combined with alkylating chemotherapy in patients with relapsed high-grade gliomas: phase I clinical results. J Neurooncol. 2010;98(3):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-0093-0.
Yoo HJ, Lim MC, Seo S-S, Kang S, Park S-Y, Joo J. Phase I/II clinical trial of modulated electro-hyperthermia treatment in patients with relapsed, refractory or progressive heavily treated ovarian cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;49(9):832–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyz071.
Yu JI, Park HC, Choi DH, et al. Prospective phase II trial of regional hyperthermia and whole liver irradiation for numerous chemorefractory liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2016;34(1):34–44. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2016.34.1.34.
Sahinbas H, Wehner H. Combined deep hyperthermia and chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil/sodium folinate and mitomycin in previously treated patients with inoperable colorectal liver metastases - A case study. Dtsche Z Onkol. 2013;45(2):74–7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1334375.
Lee DY, Haam SJ, Kim TH, Lim JY, Kim EJ, Kim NY. Oncothermia with chemotherapy in the patients with small-cell lung cancer. Conf Pap Med. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/910363.
Heo J, Kim SH, Oh YT, Chun M, Noh OK. Concurrent hyperthermia and re-irradiation for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neoplasma. 2017;64(5):803–8. https://doi.org/10.4149/neo_2017_520.
Ariyafar T, Geraily G, Shirazi A, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of combined radiotherapy and hyperthermia for the treatment response of patients with painful bony metastases: a phase 2 clinical trial. J Therm Biol. 2019;84:129–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2019.06.003.
Bull JM, Lees D, Schuette W, et al. Whole body hyperthermia: a phase-I trial of a potential adjuvant to chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med. 1979;90(3):317–23.
Locker GJ, Fuchs E-M, Worel N, et al. Whole body hyperthermia by extracorporeal circulation in spontaneously breathing sarcoma patients: hemodynamics and oxygen metabolism. Int J Artif Organs. 2011;34(11):1085–94. https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000009.
Lee S-Y, Kim J-H, Han Y-H, Cho D-H. The effect of modulated electro-hyperthermia on temperature and blood flow in human cervical carcinoma. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2018;34(7):953–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2018.1423709.
Worel N, Knobl P, Karanikas G, et al. Hepatic dysfunction contributes to coagulation disturbances in patients undergoing whole body hyperthermia by use of extracorporeal circulation. Int J Artif Organs. 2014;37(9):715–26. https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000350.
Bakhshandeh A, Bruns I, Eberhardt K, Wiedemann GJ. Chemotherapy combined with whole body hyperthermia in malignant mesothelioma of the pleural space. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2000;125(11):317–9.
Sagowski C, Jaehne M, Kehrl W, et al. Tumor oxygenation under combined whole-body-hyperthermia and polychemotherapy in a case of recurrent carcinoma of the oral cavity. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc (EUFOS). 2002;259(1):27–31.
Jeung TS, Ma SY, Yu J, Lim S. Cases that respond to oncothermia monotherapy. Conf Pap Med. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/392480.
Yeo SG. Definitive radiotherapy with concurrent oncothermia for stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: a case report. Exp Ther Med. 2015;10(2):769–72. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2567.
Pereira Arias AM, Wester JP, Blankendaal M, et al. Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome induced by whole-body hyperthermia and polychemotherapy in a patient with disseminated leiomyosarcoma of the uterus. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25(9):1013–6.
Feyerabend T, Wiedemann GJ, Steeves R. Advanced non-seminomatous germ cell cancer of the testis with brain metastases: feasibility of additional brain irradiation and whole body hyperthermia plus chemotherapy. Oncol Rep. 2001;8(2):219–23.
Aschhoff B. Ukrain in the treatment of prostate cancer patients. Int J Immunother. 2003;19(2–4):41–5.
Bremer K, Meyer A, Lohmann R. Pilot study of whole-body hyperthermia combined with chemotherapy in patients with metastasised pretreated progressive breast, ovarian, and colorectal carcinomas. Tumor Diagn Ther. 2001;22(6):115–20. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-19286.
DeCesaris C, Amin NP, Vujaskovic Z, Agarwal M, Hundal J. Hyperthermia and hyper-fractionated radiation for a cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma progressing on standard therapy: a case report. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2019;4(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2018.07.010.
Douwes F, BogoviC J, Douwes O, Migeod F, Grote C. Whole-body hyperthermia in combination with platinum-containing drugs in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2004;9(2):85–91.
Fiorentini G, Sarti D, Casadei V, et al. Modulated electro-hyperthermia as palliative treatment for pancreatic cancer: a retrospective observational study on 106 patients. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735419878505.
Hager ED, Dziambor H, Hohmann D, Gallenbeck D, Stephan M, Popa C. Deep hyperthermia with radiofrequencies in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res. 1999;19(4C):3403–8.
Hager ED, Migeod F, Koomagi R, Schrittwieser G, Krautgartner I. Multimodal, complementary therapy for advanced stage pancreatic carcinoma. Dtsche Z Onkol. 2009;41(1):16–25. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1213509.
Hildebrandt B, Wust P, Rick O, et al. Total-body hyperthermia in germ cell tumors. Onkologe. 2001;7(3):324–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007610170142.
Hildebrandt B, Drager J, Kerner T, et al. Whole-body hyperthermia in the scope of von Ardenne’s systemic cancer multistep therapy (sCMT) combined with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase I/II study. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2004;20(3):317–33.
Holzhauer P. Combined chemotherapy and regional hyperthermia of a hormone-refractory, bone and hepatic metastasizing prostate cancer in fifth line therapy. Dtsche Z Onkol. 2009;41(1):28–30. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1213513.
Iyikesici MS. Feasibility study of metabolically supported chemotherapy with weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel combined with ketogenic diet, hyperthermia and hyperbaric oxygen therapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Hyperth. 2019;36(1):446–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2019.1589584.
Iyikesici MS. Survival outcomes of metabolically supported chemotherapy combined with ketogenic diet, hyperthermia, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy in advanced gastric cancer. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(5):734–40. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_509_18.
Iyikesici MS. Long-term survival outcomes of metabolically supported chemotherapy with gemcitabine-based or FOLFIRINOX regimen combined with Ketogenic diet, Hyperthermia, and Hyperbaric Oxygen. Ther Metastatic Pancreat Cancer. 2020;27(1):31–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000502135.
Jun HJ, Kang H-J, Park JH, et al. The survival benefit of combination therapy with mild temperature hyperthermia and an Herbal prescription of Gun-Chil-Jung in 54 cancer patients treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy: a retrospective study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735420926583.
Kerner T, Hildebrandt B, Ahlers O, et al. Anaesthesiological experiences with whole body hyperthermia. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2003;19(1):1–12.
Kleef R, Kekic S, Ludwig N. Successful treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with thermochemotherapy and adjuvant immune therapy. Case Rep Oncol. 2012;5(2):212–5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000338617.
Kleef R, Moss R, Szasz AM, Bohdjalian A, Bojar H, Bakacs T. Complete clinical remission of stage IV triple-negative breast cancer lung metastasis administering low-dose immune checkpoint blockade in combination with hyperthermia and interleukin-2. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018;17(4):1297–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735418794867.
Ko H-L, Chi M-S, Mehta MP, et al. Putative abscopal effect in three patients treated by combined radiotherapy and modulated electrohyperthermia. Front Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00254.
Koike I, Hata M, Nozato T, et al. Thermochemoradiotherapy using superselective intra-arterial infusion for patients with oral cancer with cervical lymph node metastases. Anticancer Res. 2019;39(3):1365–73. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13250.
Krasny SA, Mavrichev AS, Zhavrid EA, Sukonko OG, Fradkin SZ, Polyakov SL. Whole-body hyperthermia in the management of renal carcinoma patients with metastases in regional lymph nodes. Exp Oncol. 1998;20(1):66–70.
Lee SY, Lee N-R. Positive response of a primary leiomyosarcoma of the breast following salvage hyperthermia and pazopanib. Korean J Intern Med. 2018;33(2):442–5. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.242.
Nagata T, Kanamori M, Sekine S, Arai M, Moriyama M, Fujii T. Clinical study of modulated electro-hyperthermia for advanced metastatic breast cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;14(5):103. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2265.
Nozato T, Koizumi T, Hayashi Y, et al. Thermochemoradiotherapy using superselective intra-arterial infusion for patients with oral cancer with cervical lymph node metastases. Anticancer Res. 2019;39(3):1365–73. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13250.
Ou J, Zhu X, Lu Y, et al. The safety and pharmacokinetics of high dose intravenous ascorbic acid synergy with modulated electrohyperthermia in Chinese patients with stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;109:412–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2017.08.011.
Ou J, Zhu X, Chen P, et al. A randomized phase II trial of best supportive care with or without hyperthermia and vitamin C for heavily pretreated, advanced, refractory non-small-cell lung cancer. J Adv Res. 2020;24:175–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2020.03.004.
Pang CLK, Zhang X, Wang Z, et al. Local modulated electro-hyperthermia in combination with traditional Chinese medicine vs. Intraperitoneal chemoinfusion for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with malignant ascites: a phase II randomized trial. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;6(5):723–32. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1221.
Qiao G, Wang X, Zhou X, et al. Immune correlates of clinical benefit in a phase I study of hyperthermia with adoptive T cell immunotherapy in patients with solid tumors. Int J Hyperth. 2019;36(sup1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2019.1647350.
Ranieri G, Laface C, Porcelli M, et al. Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX-4 combined with deep electro-hyperthermia as first-line therapy in metastatic colon cancer: a pilot study. Front Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.590707.
Robins HI, Sielaff KM, Storer B, Hawkins MJ, Borden EC. Phase I trial of human lymphoblastoid interferon with whole body hyperthermia in advanced cancer. Cancer Res. 1989;49(6):1609–15.
Robins HI, Katschinski DM, Longo W, et al. A pilot study of melphalan, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and 41.8 degrees C whole-body hyperthermia. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1999;43(5):409–14.
Roussakow SV. Clinical and economic evaluation of modulated electrohyperthermia concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide 21/28 days regimen in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective analysis of a two-centre German cohort trial with systematic comparison and effect-to-treatment analysis. BMJ Open. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017387.
Rubovszky G, Nagy T, Godeny M, Szasz A, Lang I. Successful treatment of solitary bone metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer with bevacizumab and hyperthermia. Pathol Oncol Res POR. 2013;19(1):119–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-012-9551-7.
Sahinbas H, Gronemeyer DHW, Bocher E, Szasz A. Retrospective clinical study of adjuvant electro-hyperthermia treatment for advanced brain-gliomas. Dtsche Z Onkol. 2007;39(4):154–60. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-986020.
Sakuma K, Koizumi T, Mitsudo K, et al. Retrograde superselective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy combined with hyperthermia and cetuximab for carcinoma of the buccal mucosa with N3 lymph node metastasis: a case report. Oral Radiol. 2019;35(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0319-y.
Sawai H, Kurimoto M, Kuzuya H, et al. Efficacy of hyperthermia in treatment of recurrent metastatic breast cancer after long-term chemotherapy: a report of 2 cases. Am J Case Rep. 2020;21:1–10. https://doi.org/10.12659/AJCR.926647.
Scheer M, Blank B, Hallmen E, et al. Desmoplastic small round cell tumors: multimodality treatment and new risk factors. Cancer Med. 2019;8(2):527–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1940.
Schencking M, Frese T, Sandholzer H. [Treatment of a radiculopathia by whole-body hyperthermia]. Behandlung einer Radikulopathie bei ossarer Metastasierung der Lendenwirbelsaule durch Infrarot-A-Ganzkorperhyperthermie. 2008; 15(5):273–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000159386.
Wehner H, von Ardenne A, Kaltofen S. Whole-body hyperthermia with water-filtered infrared radiation: technical-physical aspects and clinical experiences. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2001;17(1):19–30.
Weingartner J, Ghadjar P, Wust P, et al. Fever range whole body hyperthermia for re-irradiation of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: final results of a prospective study. Oral Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105240.
Wust P, Riess H, Hildebrandt B, et al. Feasibility and analysis of thermal parameters for the whole-body-hyperthermia system IRATHERM-2000. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2000;16(4):325–39.
Yu JI, Park HC, Oh D, et al. Combination treatment of trans-arterial chemo-embolisation, radiotherapy and hyperthermia (CERT) for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumour thrombosis: Interim analysis of prospective phase II trial. Int J Hyperth Off J Eur Soc Hyperth Oncol North Am Hyperth Group. 2016;32(3):331–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2016.1144895.
Yu JI, Park HC, Jung SH, et al. Combination treatment with transarterial chemoembolization, radiotherapy, and hyperthermia (CERT) for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: final results of a prospective phase II trial. Oncotarget. 2017;8(32):52651–64. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17072.
Zheng Y-M, Chow J-M, Chang C-L, Lai G-M. Successfully overcoming carboplatin hypersensitivity by continuous 48-h infusion of cisplatin plus poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor for heavily pretreated recurrent ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Pract. 2020;7(3):134–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCRP.JCRP_16_20.
Jun HJ, Park S-J, Kang H-J, et al. The survival benefit of combination therapy with mild temperature hyperthermia and an herbal prescription of gun-Chil-Jung in 54 cancer patients treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy: a retrospective study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735420926583.
Rietbroek RC, van de Vaart PJ, Haveman J, et al. Hyperthermia enhances the cytotoxicity and platinum-DNA adduct formation of lobaplatin and oxaliplatin in cultured SW 1573 cells. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1997;123(1):6–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01212608.
Heinrich V. Ist die Wirksamkeit der Hyperthermie wissenschaftlich erwiesen. In: Universitätsklinikum Tübingen Radioonkologie. 2021. https://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/de/das-klinikum/einrichtungen/kliniken/radioonkologie/patienten/fragen-zur-hyperthermie. Accessed from 20 Mar 2022.
Lindner L. Qualitätssicherung nach ESHO-Qualitätsrichtlinien. In: Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik III. http://www.klinikum.uni-muenchen.de/Medizinische-Klinik-und-Poliklinik-III/de/klinik/hyperthermie-start/5_qualitaetsrichtlinien/index.html. Accessed from 20 Mar 2022.
Kok HP, Cressman ENK, Ceelen W, et al. Heating technology for malignant tumors: a review. Int J Hyperth. 2020;37(1):711–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2020.1779357.
Saccomandi P, Schena E, Silvestri S. Techniques for temperature monitoring during laser-induced thermotherapy: an overview. Int J Hyperth. 2013;29(7):609–19. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2013.832411.
Bakker A, Kolff MW, Holman R, et al. Thermal skin damage during reirradiation and hyperthermia is time-temperature dependent. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(2):392–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.009.
Franckena M, Fatehi D, de Bruijne M, et al. Hyperthermia dose-effect relationship in 420 patients with cervical cancer treated with combined radiotherapy and hyperthermia. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(11):1969–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.03.009.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The work of SK and JD was funded in parts (search of the literature, title–abstract screening) by the German Guideline “S3 Leitlinie Komplementärmedizin in der Behandlung von onkologischen PatientInnen (Registernummer 032-055OL)” funded by the German Cancer Aid (Fördernummer 11583) within the German Guideline Program in Oncology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C.L. and S.K. contributed to development of the protocol. C.L. and J.D. collected data and performed analysis. C.L. and J.D. performed data interpretation. J.H. and L.K. critically revised the article and approved the final version submitted for publication. All authors reviewed the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
All authors consent to the publication of this work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Liebl, C.M., Kutschan, S., Dörfler, J. et al. Systematic review about complementary medical hyperthermia in oncology. Clin Exp Med 22, 519–565 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-022-00846-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-022-00846-9