hyperthermic chemotherapy

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mike Radcliffe - 27 May 2004 09:40 GMT

I went to a symposiun on mesothelioma last week and hyperthermic
chemotherapy was mentioned. Has anybody come accross this method of
treatment?
We have a Tronado machine that is used at a clinic here in Perth,
Australia which is used to heat up patients with microwave radiation to an
unhealthy degree and this is supposed to enhance the effects of
radiotherapy.
My understanding is that this was a line of experimentation in the 1980s
which was found to be ineffective and dangerous.
Is this how hyperthermic chemotherapy is carried out or is it something
different?
Appreciate any input.
MIKE

Reply to this Message

Steph - 27 May 2004 16:26 GMT

> I went to a symposiun on mesothelioma last week and hyperthermic
> chemotherapy was mentioned. Has anybody come accross this method of
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Appreciate any input.
> MIKE

There are several ways to do it. Whole body hyperthermia is self
explanatory. Regional hyperthermia-chemotherapy is usually done by heating
the chemotherapy solutions then perfusing them via an artery. Very
toxic...........

Reply to this Message

Mike Radcliffe - 28 May 2004 05:25 GMT

> > I went to a symposiun on mesothelioma last week and hyperthermic
> > chemotherapy was mentioned. Has anybody come accross this method of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> the chemotherapy solutions then perfusing them via an artery. Very
> toxic...........

Thanks Steph,
I should add that I Didn't understand much of anything at the symposium. It
was aimed at updating oncologists and researchers..way out of the nursing
league. You guys are on a different planet academically.
MIKE

Reply to this Message

Steph - 28 May 2004 07:10 GMT

> > > I went to a symposiun on mesothelioma last week and hyperthermic
> > > chemotherapy was mentioned. Has anybody come accross this method of
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> league. You guys are on a different planet academically.
> MIKE

I'm not entirely sure that's true, Mike.
Some oncologists are very clever but stupid.

Many (but not all) nurses have a much less blinkered view of the whole
problem than many (but not all) oncologists.

There is all the difference in the world between knowing the best treatment
for a cancer, and knowing the best treatment for a patient with
cancer.......

Reply to this Message

Mike Radcliffe - 31 May 2004 04:22 GMT

> > Thanks Steph,
> > I should add that I Didn't understand much of anything at the symposium.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> for a cancer, and knowing the best treatment for a patient with
> cancer.......

Amen to that

Reply to this Message