Tissue physiology and the response to heat.

The most important physiological parameter influencing tissue response to heat is blood flow. At mild hyperthermia temperatures blood perfusion increases in many tumours and this effect is heating time-, temperature- and tumour-dependent. These flow increases can improve tumour oxygenation. When heating is terminated, perfusion and oxygenation commonly recover, although how quickly this occurs appears to be tumour-specific. While these effects are unlikely to have any anti-tumour activity they can be exploited to improve the combination of heat with other therapies. However, since similar physiological effects should occur in normal tissues, such combination therapies must be carefully applied. Heating tumours to higher temperatures typically causes a transient increase in perfusion during heating, followed by vascular collapse which if sufficient will increase tumour necrosis. The speed and degree of vascular collapse is dependent on heating time, temperature and tumour model used. Such vascular collapse generally occurs at temperatures that cause a substantial blood flow increase in certain normal tissues, thus preferential anti-tumour effects can be achieved. The tumour vascular supply can also be exploited to improve the response to heat. Decreasing blood flow, using transient physiological modifiers or longer acting vascular disrupting agents prior to the initiation of heating, can both increase the accumulation of physical heat in the tumour, as well as increase heat sensitivity by changing the tumour micro-environmental parameters, primarily an increase in tumour acidity. Such changes are generally not seen in normal tissues, thus resulting in a therapeutic benefit.     

High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma without Palpable Lymphadenopathy: Is There a Therapeutic Role for Elective Neck Dissection?

PURPOSE: The beneficial role of elective neck dissection (END) in the management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) of the head and neck remains unproven. Some surgical specialists suggest that END may be beneficial for patients with clinically node-negative (N0) high-risk CSCC, but there are few data to support this claim. We reviewed the available literature regarding the use of END in the management of both CSCC and head and neck SCC (HNSCC). METHODOLOGY: The available medical literature pertaining to END in both CSCC and HNSCC was reviewed using PubMed and Ovid Medline searches. RESULTS: Many surgical specialists recommend that END be routinely performed in patients with N0 HNSCC when the risk of occult metastases is estimated to exceed 20%; however, patients who undergo END have no proven survival benefit over those who are initially staged as N0 and undergo therapeutic neck dissection (TND) after the development of apparent regional disease. There is a lack of data regarding the proper management of regional nodal basins in patients with N0 CSCC. In the absence of evidence-based data, the cutaneous surgeon must rely on clinical judgment to guide the management of patients with N0 high-risk CSCC of the head and neck. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate work-up for occult nodal disease may occasionally be warranted in patients with high-risk CSCC. END may play a role in only a very limited number of patients with high-risk CSCC.