Michael Chan1, Kristopher Dennis2, Yuexi Huang3, Charles Mougenot4, Edward Chow5, Carlo DeAngelis6, Jennifer Coccagna5, Arjun Sahgal5, Kullervo Hynynen3, Gregory Czarnota3,5, William Chu5. 1. 1 Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2. 2 Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 3. 3 Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. 4 Philips Healthcare, Markham, Ontario, Canada. 5. 5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 6. 6 Department of Pharmacy, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone is one of the most common sites of metastases, with bone metastases-related pain representing a significant source of morbidity among patients with cancer. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound is a noninvasive, outpatient modality with the potential for treating painful bone metastases. The aim of this study is to report our initial experience with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound in the treatment of bone metastases and our preliminary analysis of urinary cytokine levels after therapy. METHODS: This was a single-center pilot study of 10 patients with metastatic cancer to investigate the feasibility of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for primary pain control in device-accessible skeletal metastases. Treatments were performed on a clinical magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound system using a volumetric ablation technique. Primary efficacy was assessed using Brief Pain Inventory scores and morphine equivalent daily dose intake at 3 time points: before, day 14, and day 30 after the magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment. Urine cytokines were measured 3 days before treatment and 2 days after the treatment. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients, 8 were followed up 14 days and 6 were followed up 30 days after the treatment. At day 14, 3 patients (37.5%) exhibited partial pain response and 4 patients (50%) exhibited an indeterminate response, and at day 30 after the treatment, 5 patients (83%) exhibited partial pain response. No treatment-related adverse events were recorded. Of the urine cytokines measured, only Transforming growth factor alpha (TGFα) demonstrated an overall decrease, with a trend toward statistical significance ( P = .078). CONCLUSION: Our study corroborates magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound as a feasible and safe modality as a primary, palliative treatment for painful bone metastases and contributes to the limited body of literature using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for this clinical indication.
BACKGROUND: Bone is one of the most common sites of metastases, with bone metastases-related pain representing a significant source of morbidity among patients with cancer. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound is a noninvasive, outpatient modality with the potential for treating painful bone metastases. The aim of this study is to report our initial experience with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound in the treatment of bone metastases and our preliminary analysis of urinary cytokine levels after therapy. METHODS: This was a single-center pilot study of 10 patients with metastatic cancer to investigate the feasibility of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for primary pain control in device-accessible skeletal metastases. Treatments were performed on a clinical magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound system using a volumetric ablation technique. Primary efficacy was assessed using Brief Pain Inventory scores and morphine equivalent daily dose intake at 3 time points: before, day 14, and day 30 after the magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment. Urine cytokines were measured 3 days before treatment and 2 days after the treatment. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients, 8 were followed up 14 days and 6 were followed up 30 days after the treatment. At day 14, 3 patients (37.5%) exhibited partial pain response and 4 patients (50%) exhibited an indeterminate response, and at day 30 after the treatment, 5 patients (83%) exhibited partial pain response. No treatment-related adverse events were recorded. Of the urine cytokines measured, only Transforming growth factor alpha (TGFα) demonstrated an overall decrease, with a trend toward statistical significance ( P = .078). CONCLUSION: Our study corroborates magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound as a feasible and safe modality as a primary, palliative treatment for painful bone metastases and contributes to the limited body of literature using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for this clinical indication.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brief Pain Inventory; bone metastases; high-intensity-focused ultrasound; magnetic resonance thermometry; magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound
Authors: Bio Joo; Mi-Suk Park; Soo Hyeon Lee; Hye Jin Choi; Seung Tack Lim; Sun Young Rha; Itay Rachmilevitch; Young Han Lee; Jin-Suck Suh Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: William F Hartsell; Charles B Scott; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Charles W Scarantino; Robert A Ivker; Mack Roach; John H Suh; William F Demas; Benjamin Movsas; Ivy A Petersen; Andre A Konski; Charles S Cleeland; Nora A Janjan; Michelle DeSilvio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Matthew R Callstrom; Damian E Dupuy; Stephen B Solomon; Robert A Beres; Peter J Littrup; Kirkland W Davis; Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli; Cheryl Hoffman; Thomas D Atwell; J William Charboneau; Grant D Schmit; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Kathy J Brown; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C S Cleeland; R Gonin; A K Hatfield; J H Edmonson; R H Blum; J A Stewart; K J Pandya Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrea M Kirou-Mauro; Amanda Hird; Jennifer Wong; Emily Sinclair; Elizabeth A Barnes; May Tsao; Cyril Danjoux; Edward Chow Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Maire Ratasvuori; Rikard Wedin; Johnny Keller; Markus Nottrott; Olga Zaikova; Peter Bergh; Anders Kalen; Johan Nilsson; Halldor Jonsson; Minna Laitinen Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Merel Huisman; Mie K Lam; Lambertus W Bartels; Robbert J Nijenhuis; Chrit T Moonen; Floor M Knuttel; Helena M Verkooijen; Marco van Vulpen; Maurice A van den Bosch Journal: J Ther Ultrasound Date: 2014-10-10
Authors: Lazzaro di Biase; Emma Falato; Maria Letizia Caminiti; Pasquale Maria Pecoraro; Flavia Narducci; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro Journal: Neurol Res Int Date: 2021-06-29
Authors: Joe D Baal; William C Chen; Ulysis Baal; Sagar Wagle; Jed H Baal; Thomas M Link; Matthew D Bucknor Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 2.199