Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Int J Hyperthermia. 2005 May;21(3):271-81.

Localized versus regional hyperthermia: comparison of xenotransplants treated with a small animal ultrasound system and waterbath limb immersion.

Author information

Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA.


The response of xenotransplants were compared with waterbath immersion vs focal ultrasound (US) hyperthermia using tumour growth delay, immunhistochemistry and histopathology assays. Waterbath hyperthermia was performed by limb immersion. Precautions were taken to minimize total body heating by surrounding the mouse with plastic insulators. Thermometry was performed with clinical-grade, 20-gauge needle thermocouples and monitored with a Labthermics unit. Significant differences in cytotoxicity between ultrasound and waterbath treatment of tumors at 43 degrees C were observed as determined by TUNNEL assay. Conversely, contralateral (non-treated) tumours in animals treated with similar temperature demonstrated no significant differences between modalities. Western blot analysis revealed increased hsp70 induction at 43 degrees C in waterbath vs focal ultrasound hyperthermia. Comparison of tumour growth delay between tumours heated with waterbath vs ultrasound at 43 degrees C but not at 41 degrees C revealed significant differences. This is the first study comparing localized vs regional hyperthermia using the small animal ultrasound system (SAHUS) delivery system. Consistent ultrasound hyperthermia can be achieved throughout a xenotransplant. At equivalent temperature of 43 degrees C for 60?min, waterbath hyperthermia demonstrated greater local response vs ultrasound hyperthermia.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Taylor & Francis
    Loading ...
    Support Center