Hyperthermia generally refers to temperatures between 40°C and 45°C whereas temperatures >45°C are considered thermoablative. Mild temperature hyperthermia mediates its antitumor effects via subtle influences on the tumor microenvironment (
Horsman and Overgaard 1997), induction of apoptosis (
Fuller et al. 1994;
Harmon et al. 1991), activation of immunological processes (
Servadio and Leib 1991;
Stawarz et al. 1993;
Zhang et al. 2008), and induction of gene and protein synthesis (
Horsman and Overgaard 1997;
Kampinga and Dikomey 2001;
Roti Roti 2004). While these effects do not independently cause tumor cell cytotoxicity, they lead to greater effectiveness of other conventional treatment modalities such as RT, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy (
van der Zee 2002) (
Hildebrandt et al. 2002). In its role as an adjunct to RT, hyperthermia serves as a dose-modifying agent that increases the therapeutic ratio of RT (i.e., enhanced effectiveness of a given dose of RT without additional toxicity). Hyperthermia can be achieved a number of ways including local hyperthermia by external or internal energy sources, regional hyperthermia by irrigation of body cavities or perfusion of organs or limbs, and whole body hyperthermia. Regardless of the mechanism of heating, clinical trials of hyperthermia as stand-alone therapy or in combination with RT have demonstrated promising outcomes in the treatment of many cancers including prostate cancer (
Anscher et al. 1997;
Baronzio et al. 2009;
Jones et al. 2005;
Overgaard et al. 1995;
Satoh et al. 1988;
Sherar et al. 2004;
Sherar et al. 2003;
Shimm et al. 1988;
Sneed et al. 1998;
van der Zee et al. 2000;
Vernon et al. 1996). Although an entirely non-invasive treatment approach is preferred, minimally invasive techniques such as intraluminal or intracavitary treatments are particularly appealing due to the flexibility of positioning endorectal applicators close to the posterior aspect of the prostate or transurethral catheters in the center of the prostate. This strategy has been employed successfully in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer using modalities such as ultrasound, radiofrequency and microwaves with appropriate applicators positioned either externally, intraluminally or interstitially to generate heat. Multiple studies report gratifying outcomes with the use of endorectal microwave or ultrasound applicator mediated hyperthermia in conjunction with conventional RT (thermoradiotherapy) for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer (
Algan et al. 2000;
Fosmire et al. 1993;
Hurwitz et al. 2002;
Hurwitz et al. 2005;
Hurwitz et al. 2001;
Mendecki et al. 1980;
Servadio and Leib 1991;
Yerushalmi et al. 1982). Similarly, radiofrequency induced hyperthermia has been used in the treatment of prostate tumors through intracavitary applicators (
Bhowmick et al. 2001;
Dawkins et al. 1997;
Sofras et al. 1996;
Zargar Shoshtari et al. 2006). The main challenge with the intracavitary or intraluminal delivery of hyperthermia is the generation of adequate heat in the prostate without excessive temperature in critical adjacent structures such as the neurovascular bundle, urethra, bladder and rectum (
Gillett et al. 2004;
Marberger 2007). Alternatively, external regional hyperthermia can be used in combination with RT for the treatment of prostate cancer (
Anscher et al. 1997). The lack of significant temperature conformality at the interface between the prostate and the rectum remains a major challenge with this technique. Interstitial hyperthermia offers the possibility of generating uniform temperatures within the prostate without any significant temperature rise in surrounding normal structures, but is an invasive procedure (
Emami et al. 1996;
Lancaster et al. 1999;
Prionas et al. 1994;
Sherar et al. 2004;
Sherar et al. 2003).
Clinical hyperthermia experience has led to the recognition that high minimum temperatures achieved in most parts of the target volume correlate better with clinical outcome than maximum temperatures attained in small parts of the target volume (
Dewhirst et al. 1984). A standardized nomenclature has been proposed and validated for the representation of variable time-temperature data as an Arrhenius isoeffect relationship where the total thermal dose is expressed as the cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C achieved or exceeded in 90% of the prostate (CEM 43°C T
90) (
Jones et al. 2005;
Sapareto and Dewey 1984;
Thrall et al. 2005). The targeted clinical thermal dose for hyperthermia when combined with RT is a CEM 43°C T
90 of 5–10 minutes (
Hurwitz et al. 2005;
Jones et al. 2005;
Oleson et al. 1993;
Tilly et al. 2005). Despite the increasingly convincing evidence for clinical hyperthermic radiosensitization and the evolving consensus in reporting these data, it is underutilized in routine clinical practice due to: (a) the invasive means of achieving and maintaining hyperthermia, (b) the lack of good thermal dosimetry, and (c) the inability to achieve localized hyperthermic temperatures (
Moros et al. 2007). Hence, a relatively non-invasive approach with externally regulatable and quantifiable prostate-specific hyperthermia could provide renewed enthusiasm for this treatment paradigm. The above mentioned hyperthermia strategies solely rely on the ability of the cancer tissues to convert the imparted electromagnetic energy into heat. In contrast to methods relying on modifying the energy source to generate heat, there is evolving interest in methods to preferentially enhance the heat generating capacity of the cancer tissues by introducing exogenous materials in to them. Along these lines, ferromagnetic seeds have been used in conjunction with a magnetic field to induce hyperthermia in prostate cancer (
Brezovich and Meredith 1989;
Meredith et al. 1989;
Partington et al. 1989). Ferromagnetic seeds or thermoseeds are needle-shaped devices that are interstitially placed into the tumor, similar to brachytherapy implants, and the heating is accomplished by an externally applied magnetic field. The uniqueness of thermoseed hyperthermia are (i) the lack of requirement for external power connections and (ii) the automatic regulation of temperature of the implanted thermoseeds depending on the compositional characteristics of the implants (
Meredith et al. 1989;
Partington et al. 1989). Being an interstitial modality, thermoseed mediated hyperthermia has limitations similar to other interstitial hyperthermia techniques. Further, due to the heating equipment size and the requirement to limit electromagnetic radiation to meet federal (FCC) regulations, thermoseed implant hyperthermia treatments are performed in special electromagnetic shielded rooms located in dedicated hyperthermia suites. Alternatively, nanoscale materials, particularly metal nanoparticles that are activatable by externally applied electromagnetic fields, can be used to induce cancer-specific hyperthermia.