Advertisement

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 185, Issue 2, pp 120–126 | Cite as

Strong synergy of heat and modulated electromagnetic field in tumor cell killing

  • Gabor Andocs
  • Helmut Renner
  • Lajos Balogh
  • Laszlo Fonyad
  • Csaba Jakab
  • Andras Szasz
Original Article

Background and Purpose:

Hyperthermia is an emerging complementary method in radiooncology. Despite many positive studies and comprehensive reviews, the method is not widely accepted as a combination to radiotherapy. Modulated electrohyperthermia (mEHT; capacitive, electric field modulated, 13.56 MHz) has been used in clinical practice for almost 2 decades in Germany, Austria and Hungary. This in vivo study in nude mice xenograft tumors compares mEHT with “classic” radiative hyperthermia (radHT).

Material and Methods:

Nude mice were xenografted with HT29 human colorectal carcinoma cells. 28 mice in four groups with seven animals each and two tumors per animal (totally 56 tumors) were included in the present study: group 1 as untreated control; group 2 treated with radHT at 42 °C; group 3 treated with mEHT at identical 42 °C; group 4 treated with mEHT at 38 °C (by intensively cooling down the tumor). 24 h after treatment, animals were sacrificed and the tumor cross sections studied by precise morphological methods for the respective relative amount of “dead” tumor cells.

Results:

The effect of mEHT established a double effect as a synergy between the purely thermal (temperature-dependent) and nonthermal (not directly temperature-dependent) effects. The solely thermal enhancement ratio (TER) of cell killing was shown to be 2.9. The field enhancement ratio (FER) at a constant temperature of 42 °C was measured as 3.2. Their complex application significantly increased the therapeutic enhancement to 9.4.

Conclusion:

mEHT had a remarkable cancer cell-killing effect in a nude mice xenograft model.

Key Words:

Hyperthermia Modulated electric field Tumor treatment Bioelectromagnetics 

Ausgeprägte Synergie zwischen Hyperthermie und moduliertem elektromagnetischem Feld bei der Abtötung von Tumorzellen

Hintergrund und Ziel:

Die Hyperthermie ist eine aufstrebende ergänzende Therapie in der Radioonkologie. Trotz zahlreicher positiver Studien und umfassender Reviews ist diese Methode immer noch nicht als Kombination zur Radiotherapie anerkannt. Die modulierte Elektrohyperthermie (mEHT; kapazitiv mit moduliertem elektrischem Feld, 13,56 MHz) wird seit fast 2 Jahrzehnten in Deutschland, Österreich und Ungarn klinisch angewandt. Die vorliegende In-vivo-Studie vergleicht in einem Xenograft-Nacktmaus-Tumormodell die mEHT mit der „klassischen“ radiativen Hyperthermie (radHT).

Material und Methodik:

Nacktmäuse wurden mit humanen kolorektalen HT29-Tumorzellen xenotransplantiert. 28 Mäuse in vier Gruppen zu je sieben Tieren mit zwei Tumoren pro Tier (gesamt 56 Tumoren) wurden in diese Studie einbezogen: Gruppe 1 als unbehandelte Kontrollgruppe; Gruppe 2 behandelt mit radHT bei 42 °C; Gruppe 3 behandelt mit mEHT ebenfalls bei 42 °C; Gruppe 4 behandelt mit mEHT bei 38 °C (durch intensive Kühlung des Tumors). 24 h nach der Behandlung wurden die Tiere getötet und die Tumorquerschnitte morphologisch auf den jeweiligen Anteil „toter“ Tumorzellen untersucht.

Ergebnisse:

Die Behandlung mit mEHT zeigte eine doppelte Wirkung als Synergie zwischen dem ausschließlich thermalen (temperaturabhängigen) und dem nichtthermalen (nicht direkt temperaturabhängigen) Effekt. Folgende Faktoren wurden gemessen: die durch alleinige Hyperthermie bedingte Verstärkung der Zellzerstörung („thermal enhancement ratio“ [TER]) mit dem Faktor 2,9; der alleinige Feldverstärkungseffekt („field enhancement ratio“ [FER]) bei konstanter Temperatur von 42 °C mit dem Faktor 3,2; die Kombination beider Effekte mit einem signifikant erhöhten Faktor von 9,4.

Schlussfolgerung:

Die durch ein moduliertes elektrisches Feld (13,56 MHz) erzeugte mEHT hatte in einem Nacktmaus-Xenograft-Tumormodell einen ausgeprägten tumorzellabtötenden Effekt.

Schlüsselwörter:

Hyperthermie Moduliertes elektrisches Feld Tumorbehandlung Bioelektromagnetismus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Becker RO, Murray DG. A method for producing cellular redifferentiation by means of very small electrical currents. Trans N Y Acad Sci Ser II 1967;29:606–15.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker RO, Selden G. The body electric. New York: Quill, Morrow, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bini M, Ignesti A, Millanta L, et al. An unbalanced electric applicator for RF hyperthermia. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1985;32:638–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brunner G. Elektrohyperthermie von Hautkrebbszellen: neue Ergebnisse zu potentiellen molekularen Wirkunngsmechanismen. Hyperthermie-Symposium, Köln, 19.–20. Oktober 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brunner G, Erkell L. Cellular and molecular effects of electrohyperthermia in a cell model of skin cancer progression. 10th International Congress on Hyperthermic Oncology, ICHO 2008, Munich, April 9–12, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cherepenin V, Karpov A, Korjenevsky A, et al. Preliminary static EIT images of the thorax in health and disease. Physiol Meas 2002;23:33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiabrera A, Hisenkamp M, Pilla AA, et al. Cytofluorometry of electro-magnetically controlled cell dedifferentiation. J Histochem Cytochem 1979;27:375–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cone CD, Tongier M. Control of somatic cell mitosis by simulated changes in transmembrane potential level. Oncogenesis 1971;25:168–82.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeVita VT, Hellman SJr, Rosenberg SA. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology, 7th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004:771–5, 1110–1, 1312, 2569–70.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fatehi D, van der Zee J, Notenboom A, et al. Comparison of intratumor and intraluminal temperatures during locoregional deep hyperthermia of pelvic tumors. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:479–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feldmann HJ, Molls M, Vaupel P. Blood flow and oxygenation status of human tumors - clinical investigations. Strahlenther Onkol 1999;175:479–86. http://www.springerlink.com/content/tl873r02l782/?p=4a54ef8d7aa547ee82633315025a599e&pi=0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fiorentini G. Szasz A. Hyperthermia today: electric energy, a new opportunity in cancer treatment. J Cancer Res Ther 2006;2:41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldman R, Pollack S. Electric fields and proliferation in a chronic wound model. Bioelectromagnetics 1996;17:450–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimnes S, Martinsen OG. Bioimpedance and bioelectricity basis. New York: Academic Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harms W, Krempien R, Grehn C, et al. Electromagnetically navigated brachytherapy as a new treatment option for peripheral pulmonary tumors. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182:108–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harrington DB, Becker RO. Electrical stimulation of RNA and protein synthesis in the frog erythrocyte. Exp Cell Res 1973;76:95–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holder D. Biomedical applications of electrical impedance tomography [Editorial]. Physiol Meas 2002;23:3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holt JAG. Microwaves are not hyperthermia. Radiographer 1988;35:151–62.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirson ED, Dbaly V, Tovarys F, et al. Alternating electric fields arrest cell proliferation in animal tumor models and human brain tumors. PNAS 2007;104:10152–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirson ED, Gurvich Z, Schneiderman R, et al. Disruption of cancer cell replication by alternating electric fields. Cancer Res 2004;64:3288–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kufe DW, Bast RC, Hait W, et al., eds. Cancer medicine. Holland-Frei — Cancer medicine 7. American Association for Cancer Research. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lövey J, Bereczky B, Gilly R, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin alpha improves the efficacy of radiotherapy of a human tumor xenograft, affecting tumor cells and microvessels. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCaig CD, Rajnicek AM, Song B, et al. Controlling cell behaviour electrically: current views and future potential. Physiol Rev 2005;85:943–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Milani V, Pazos M, Issels RD, et al. Radiochemotherapy in combination with regional hyperthermia in preirradiated patients with recurrent rectal cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:163–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielsen OS, Horsman M, Overgaard J. A future for hyperthermia in cancer treatment? Eur J Cancer 2001;37:1587–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Overgaard J. Effect of local hyperthermia alone and in combination with radiation on solid tumors. In: Streffer C, van Beuningen D, Dietzel F, et al., eds. Cancer therapy by hyperthermia and radiation. Baltimore-München: Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1978:49–61.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perez CA, Brady LW, Halperin EC, et al. Principles and practice of radiation oncology, 4th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004:699–735.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rhomberg W, Hammer J, Sedlmayer F, et al. Irradiation with and without razoxane in the treatment of incompletely resected or inoperable recurrent rectal cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:380–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riu PJ, Rosell J, Bragos R, et al. Electrical bioimpedance methods. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999;873:17–24.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rödel C, Sauer R. Integration of novel agents into combined-modality treatment of rectal cancer patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:227–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salinari S, Bertuzzi A, Mingrone G, et al. New bioimpedance model accurately predicts lower limb muscle volume: validation by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2002;282:E960–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scholtz B, Anderson R. On electrical impedance scanning - principles and simulations. Electromedica 2000;68:35–44.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seegenschmiedt MH, Vernon CC. A historical perspective on hyperthermia in oncology. In: Seegenschmiedt MH, Fessenden P, Vernon CC, eds. Thermoradiotherapy and thermochemotherapy, vol 1. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 1995:3–46.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smit HJ, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Roeleveld RJ, et al. Epoprostenol-induced pulmonary vasodilatation in patients with pulmonary hypertension measured by electrical impedance tomography. Physiol Meas 2002;23:237–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Szasz N. Electric field regulation of chondrocyte proliferation, biosynthesis and cellular signalling. PhD Thesis. Cambridge: MIT, 2003.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Szasz A. Hyperthermia: a modality in the wings. J Cancer Res Ther 2006;2:171–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Szasz A. Physical background and technical realization of hyperthermia. In: Baronzio GF, Hager ED, eds. Locoregional radiofrequency-, perfusional- and wholebody-hyperthermia in cancer treatment: new clinical aspects. Berlin- Heidelberg: Springer, 2006:27–59.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Szasz A, Szasz O, Szasz N. Electrohyperthermia: a new paradigm in cancer therapy. Dtsch Z Onkol 2001;33:91–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Szasz A, Vincze G. Dose concept of oncological hyperthermia: heat-equation considering the cell destruction. J Cancer Res Ther 2006;2:171–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Szasz A, Vincze G, Szasz O, et al. An energy analysis of extracellular hyperthermia. Electro-Magneto-biol Med 2003;22:103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Szendro P, Vincze G, Szasz A. Bio-response to white noise excitation. Electro- Magneto-biol Med 2001;20:215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Szendro P, Vincze G, Szasz A. Pink-noise behaviour of biosystems. Eur Biophys J 2001;30:227–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tilly W, Gellermann J, Graf R, et al. Regional hyperthermia in conjunction with definitive radiotherapy against recurrent or locally advanced prostate cancer T3 pN0 M0. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181:35–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van der Zee J. Heating the patient: a promising approach? Ann Oncol 2002;13:1173–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vincze G, Szasz A, Szasz N. On the thermal noise limit of cellular membranes. Bioelectromagnetics 2005;26:28–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Watson BW. Reappraisal: the treatment of tumours with direct electric current. Med Sci Res 1991;19:103–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Urban & Vogel, Muenchen 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabor Andocs
    • 1
    • 2
  • Helmut Renner
    • 3
    • 7
  • Lajos Balogh
    • 1
  • Laszlo Fonyad
    • 4
  • Csaba Jakab
    • 5
  • Andras Szasz
    • 6
  1. 1.1„Frederic Joliot Curie” National Research Institute for Radiobiology and RadiohygieneBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary ScienceSt. István UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Clinic of RadiooncologyKlinikum NurembergNurembergGermany
  4. 4.1st Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer ResearchSemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary
  5. 5.Department of Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary ScienceSt. István UniversityBudapestHungary
  6. 6.Biotechnics Department, Faculty of EngineeringSt. István UniversityGödöllőHungary
  7. 7.LuzernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations