Optimal power deposition patterns for ideal high temperature therapy/hyperthermia treatments

If it were possible to achieve, an ideal high temperature therapy or hyperthermia treatment would involve a single heating session and yield a desired thermal dose distribution in the tumour that would be attained in the shortest possible treatment time without heating critical normal tissues excessively. Simultaneously achieving all of these goals is impossible in practice, thus requiring trade-offs that allow clinicians to approach more closely some of these ideal goals at the expense of others. To study the basic nature of a subset of these trade-offs, the present simulation study looked at a simple, ideal case in which the tumour is heated by a single, optimized (with respect to space) power pulse, with no power deposition in the normal tissue. Results were obtained for two different clinical strategies (i.e. trade-off approaches), including: (1) an ‘aggressive’ approach, wherein the desired, uniform thermal dose is completely delivered to the tumour during the power-on period. This approach gives the clinician the satisfaction of knowing that the tumour was treated completely while power was being delivered, and yields the shortest attainable tumour dose delivery time. However, that benefit is attained at the cost of both ‘overdosing’ the tumour during the subsequent cool down period and, paradoxically, requiring a longer, overall treatment time. Here, the treatment time is considered as that time interval from the initiation of the heating pulse to the time at which the entire tumour has decayed to a specified ‘safe’ temperature — below 43°C for our calculations. And, (2) a ‘conservative’ approach is considered, wherein the desired uniform dose is attained at the post-heating time at which the complete tumour cools back down to ‘basal’ conditions, taken as 4 h in this study. This conservative approach requires less applied power and energy and avoids the ‘overdosing’ problem, but at the cost of having a tumour dose delivery time that can be significantly longer than the heating pulse duration. This approach can require that clinicians wait a significant time after the power has been turned off before being able to confirm that the desired tumour thermal dose was reached. The present findings show that: (1) for both clinical strategies, an optimal power deposition shape (with respect to position in the tumour) can always be found that provides the desired uniform thermal dose in the tumour, regardless of the heating pulse duration chosen or the tumour perfusion pattern; and (2) shorter heating pulses are preferable to longer ones in that they require less total energy, take less total time to treat the patients, and have optimal power deposition patterns less influenced by perfusion. On the other hand, shorter pulses always require higher temperatures, and for the ‘aggressive’ clinical approach, they give significantly larger excess thermal doses in the tumour. The aggressive approach always requires longer treatment times than comparable conservative treatments. The optimal power patterns for both strategies involve a high-power density at the tumour boundary, which frequently creates a ‘thermal wave’ that contributes significantly to the final thermal dose distribution attained.