PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) with that of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for treatment of uterine fibroids. METHODS: Between January 2010 and January 2013, 51 women with symptomatic uterine fibroids underwent MR-HIFU. Follow-up and MR imaging were compared to 68 women treated with UAE, who fulfilled eligibility criteria for MR-HIFU - e.g., size (≤ 12 cm) and number (≤ 5) of fibroids. We compared median symptom severity (tSSS), total health-realted quality of life (HRQoL) scores, and reintervention rates. The adjusted effect on symptom relief and HRQoL improvement was calculated using multivariable linear regression. Cox regression was applied to calculate the adjusted risk of reintervention between both treatments. RESULTS: Median tSSS improved significantly from baseline to three-month follow-up (P < 0.001) for both MR-HIFU (53.1 (IQR [40.6-68.8]) to 34.4 (IQR [21.9-46.9]) and UAE (65.3 (IQR [56.3-74.2]) to 21.9 (IQR [9.4-34.4]). In addition, significantly better HRQoL scores were observed after three months (P < 0.001). However, in multivariate analysis, UAE had a stronger effect on symptom relief and HRQoL improvement than MR-HIFU (P < 0.001). Patients treated with MR-HIFU had a 7.1 (95 % CI [2.00-25.3]; P = 0.002) times higher risk of reintervention within 12 months (18/51 vs. 3/68). CONCLUSION: Both MR-HIFU and UAE result in significant symptom relief related to uterine fibroids. However, MR-HIFU is associated with a higher risk of reintervention. KEY POINTS: • This study compared outcomes between volumetric MR-HIFU and UAE for uterine fibroids. • Both MR-HIFU and UAE result in significant symptom relief and quality of life improvement. • UAE had a stronger positive effect on the clinical outcomes. • Reintervention rate after MR-HIFU ablation was significantly higher than after UAE.
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) with that of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for treatment of uterine fibroids. METHODS: Between January 2010 and January 2013, 51 women with symptomatic uterine fibroids underwent MR-HIFU. Follow-up and MR imaging were compared to 68 women treated with UAE, who fulfilled eligibility criteria for MR-HIFU - e.g., size (≤ 12 cm) and number (≤ 5) of fibroids. We compared median symptom severity (tSSS), total health-realted quality of life (HRQoL) scores, and reintervention rates. The adjusted effect on symptom relief and HRQoL improvement was calculated using multivariable linear regression. Cox regression was applied to calculate the adjusted risk of reintervention between both treatments. RESULTS: Median tSSS improved significantly from baseline to three-month follow-up (P < 0.001) for both MR-HIFU (53.1 (IQR [40.6-68.8]) to 34.4 (IQR [21.9-46.9]) and UAE (65.3 (IQR [56.3-74.2]) to 21.9 (IQR [9.4-34.4]). In addition, significantly better HRQoL scores were observed after three months (P < 0.001). However, in multivariate analysis, UAE had a stronger effect on symptom relief and HRQoL improvement than MR-HIFU (P < 0.001). Patients treated with MR-HIFU had a 7.1 (95 % CI [2.00-25.3]; P = 0.002) times higher risk of reintervention within 12 months (18/51 vs. 3/68). CONCLUSION: Both MR-HIFU and UAE result in significant symptom relief related to uterine fibroids. However, MR-HIFU is associated with a higher risk of reintervention. KEY POINTS: • This study compared outcomes between volumetric MR-HIFU and UAE for uterine fibroids. • Both MR-HIFU and UAE result in significant symptom relief and quality of life improvement. • UAE had a stronger positive effect on the clinical outcomes. • Reintervention rate after MR-HIFU ablation was significantly higher than after UAE.
Authors: J H Ravina; D Herbreteau; N Ciraru-Vigneron; J M Bouret; E Houdart; A Aymard; J J Merland Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul N M Lohle; Marianne J Voogt; Jolanda De Vries; Albert J Smeets; Harry A M Vervest; Leo E H Lampmann; Peter F Boekkooi Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Nathan J McDannold; Minna J So; Gina Hesley; Bobbie Gostout; Hyun S Kim; George A Holland; Dennis A Sarti; Kullervo Hynynen; Ferenc A Jolesz; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicole A Volkers; Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Erwin Birnie; Willem M Ankum; Jim A Reekers Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Esther V A Bouwsma; Krzysztof R Gorny; Gina K Hesley; Jani R Jensen; Lisa G Peterson; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Matthew T Silvestrini; Elizabeth S Ingham; Lisa M Mahakian; Azadeh Kheirolomoom; Yu Liu; Brett Z Fite; Sarah M Tam; Samantha T Tucci; Katherine D Watson; Andrew W Wong; Arta M Monjazeb; Neil E Hubbard; William J Murphy; Alexander D Borowsky; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2017-03-23
Authors: Andrew W Wong; Brett Z Fite; Yu Liu; Azadeh Kheirolomoom; Jai W Seo; Katherine D Watson; Lisa M Mahakian; Sarah M Tam; Hua Zhang; Josquin Foiret; Alexander D Borowsky; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Inez M Verpalen; Jolien P de Boer; Marlot Linstra; Roelien L I Pol; Ingrid M Nijholt; Chrit T W Moonen; Lambertus W Bartels; Arie Franx; Martijn F Boomsma; Manon N G Braat Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K J Anneveldt; I M Verpalen; I M Nijholt; J R Dijkstra; R D van den Hoed; M Van't Veer-Ten Kate; E de Boer; J A C van Osch; E Heijman; H R Naber; E Ista; A Franx; S Veersema; J A F Huirne; J M Schutte; M F Boomsma Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-12-18
Authors: Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Krzysztof R Gorny; Gina K Hesley; Lisa E Vaughan; David A Woodrum; Maureen A Lemens; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 2.681