The petition in favour of local Hyperthermia

Dear Heinz, the discussion started on another post from me. Between 3 different hyperthermia solutions and who came with the best results. You know this slide! Eric

Dear Eric, Dear Dr. Huigol, Thank you for your input. We still need a more factual discussion! Beste regards

Dear Mr. Roussakow, Instead of commenting all my (proven) articles, please investigate it yourself, as you being CEO of a research centre. You see a failed study as important but not the other trials who ended successfully. Weather oncotherm or Celsius42, capacitive electro magnetic works. Ofcourse used by the right physicians. (Dr. Huilgol, Dr. Wehner, Dr. Sahinbas, etc) But isn't this always? Do not give a gun into the wrong hands.

This is a lie from the first to the last word. What you say is so called "thermal enhancement ratio" or TER. TER is defined as a ratio of radiotherapy (RT) dose without hyperthermia (HT) to the dose with hyperthermia povided that the outcome is equal (so-called dose equivalence). You statement on 6 Gy w/o HT vs 2 Gy with HT means TER = 3.0. This is an example from radiobiological studies on rodents and it shows a misanderstanding of both clinical radiotherapy and hyperthermia. Once I discussed an outline of a radiobiological research on oncothermia with one old and very experienced professor, and he said: in control, we will apply a half dose of radiotherapy. I objected that I do not need a half dose, this is inadequate control, I need the complete dose. He looked at me with wise eyes and said: if you apply the full dose, you will receive a complete remission in all rats and do not show the effect of your intervention. This is a case: you can show (probably, not exactly) the effect of HT on small, clinically irelevant doses of RT, but never on complete doses, and the efficacy of complete RT will be always better than RT+HT in any combination. There is no evidence of clinical efficacy of radiopotentiation. Overgaard study (1996) was a radiobiological study with inadequate RT doses (24-27 Gy vs normal 50 Gy) and hidden survival analysis, although the local control was anyway worse compared to normal RT. In Vernon meta-analysis (1996), 3 out of 5 groups were HT-negative, and the main effect was received in the industry-dependent group of ESHO (European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology). Jones study (2005) was corrupted in view of defects of randomization: RT dose was +10% in the HT group. Harima (2001) trial was heavily biased due to incorrect statistics and manipulated survival analysis: actually there was no advantage of HT. The same was in the van der Zee trial (2000): they just "painted" some death events in the control RT group to obtain significant difference - and concealed significantly higher toxicity with HT. Vasanthan RCT (2005) was explicitely negative: HT worsened the RT results. The new Lutgens RCT of 2016 showed the same: event-free survival in HT group was 3-12% worse vs the comparator. Flameling study from the US (2015) didn't show any advantage of HT. What you are doing is a nonsens. There is evidence-based medicine to introduce medical interventions. This petition is a nonsens. Please stop deceiving people.