| Literature DB >> 27822376 |
Rui Chen1, Bilgin Keserci2, Hui Bi1, Xiaobing Han3, Xiaoying Wang4, Wenpei Bai1, Yueling Wang3, Xuedong Yang4, Jian Yang5, Juan Wei6, Minna Seppälä7, Antti Viitala7, Qinping Liao8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumor in women, and surgical intervention is still the main fibroid treatment. Patient demands have encouraged development of less-invasive methods such as high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy using a volumetric ablation technique in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids in China.Entities:
Keywords: MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound; Therapy outcome; Uterine fibroids; Volumetric ablation technique
Year: 2016 PMID: 27822376 PMCID: PMC5094072 DOI: 10.1186/s40349-016-0072-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ther Ultrasound ISSN: 2050-5736
Fig. 1Multiplane MR thermometric images acquired during sonication with a 12-mm treatment cell (frequency, 1.2 MHz; acoustic power, 190 W) with visualization of the ultrasound focus in a coronal view, b sagittal view, and c coronal view from the near field and d oblique view from the far field
Fig. 2Flowchart of patient screening and enrollment
Patient demographics, number and type of fibroids
| Variable | Category | Peking ( | Xi’an ( | Overall ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Mean (SD) | 45.1 (4.50) | 43.9 (4.50) | 44.5 (4.50) |
| Weight (kg) | Mean (SD) | 62.2 (7.60) | 58.5 (7.80) | 60.5 (7.90) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | Mean (SD) | 24 (2.40) | 22.8 (2.60) | 23.5 (2.60) |
| Ethnicity | Asian | 57 (98.3 %) | 49 (100 %) | 106 (99.1 %) |
| Caucasian | 1 (1.7 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) | |
| Number of fibroids | Total number | 77 | 53 | 130 |
| Mean (SD) | 1.3 (0.50) | 1.1 (0.30) | 1.2 (0.50) | |
| Type of fibroid | Intramural | 42 (54.5 %) | 45 (84.9 %) | 87 (66.9 %) |
| Submucosal | 5 (6.5 %) | 2 (3.8 %) | 7 (5.4 %) | |
| Subserosal | 30 (39.0 %) | 6 (11.3 %) | 27.7 %) |
Patients with fibroid shrinkage at 6 months post treatment
| Sites | Evaluable patients | Number of successes | Proportion | 95 % CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peking | 58 | 52 | 0.90 | (0.79, 0.96) | <.001 |
| Xi’an | 49 | 47 | 0.96 | (0.86, 1.00) | <.001 |
| Overall | 107 | 99 | 0.93 | (0.86, 0.97) | <.001 |
Proportion of patients with reduction in total fibroid volume at 6 months
| Reduction in total fibroid volume (%) | Peking ( | Xi’an ( | Overall ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≥10 | 0.90 (0.79, 0.96) | 0.96 (0.86, 1.00) | 0.93 (0.86, 0.97) |
| ≥20 | 0.89 (0.77, 0.96) | 0.87 (0.74, 0.95) | 0.88 (0.80, 0.94) |
| ≥30 | 0.76 (0.62, 0.87) | 0.74 (0.59, 0.86) | 0.75 (0.65, 0.83) |
| ≥40 | 0.69 (0.54, 0.80) | 0.52 (0.37, 0.67) | 0.61 (0.51, 0.71) |
| ≥50 | 0.46 (0.33, 0.60) | 0.30 (0.18, 0.46) | 0.39 (0.29, 0.49) |
Percent reduction in fibroid volume measured by MRI
| Months post treatment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | Parameter | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Peking | No. patients | 58 | 54 | 54 |
| Mean (SD) | 20.6 (23.00) | 43.3 (25.10) | 51.3 (21.60) | |
| 95 % CI | (14.6, 26.6) | (36.4, 50.1) | (45.4, 57.2) | |
| Xi’an | No. patients | 49 | 45 | 46 |
| Mean (SD) | 20.1 (16.60) | 39.6 (19.40) | 48.8 (19.00) | |
| 95 % CI | (15.3, 24.9) | (33.8, 45.4) | (43.2, 54.5) | |
| Overall | No. patients | 107 | 99 | 100 |
| Mean (SD) | 20.4 (20.20) | 41.6 (22.70) | 50.2 (20.40) | |
| 95 % CI | (16.5, 24.2) | (37.1, 46.1) | (46.1, 54.2) | |
Fig. 3An example of the progression of fibroid volume reduction after successful treatment: a T1W CE-THRIVE immediately post treatment, b T2W image of the fibroid at treatment day (fibroid volume 144.3 ml), and c–e T2W images at 1 month (70.3 ml, % reduction 51.32 %), 3 months (31.8 ml, % reduction 74.8 %), and 6 months (23.6 ml, % reduction 83.6 %) follow-ups
Summary non-perfused fibroid volume percent (%NPV) based on MRI evaluation (treatment visit)
| Variable | Category | Peking ( | Xi’an ( | Overall ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| %NPV | No. patients | 57 | 49 | 106 |
| Mean (SD) | 55.7 (21.10) | 53.7 (21.30) | 54.8 (21.20) | |
| 95 % CI | (50.1, 61.3) | (47.5, 59.8) | (50.7, 58.8) |
%NPV percent non-perfused volume
Uterine fibroid symptom severity (UFS-QoL) overall summary
| Months post treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UFS-QoL parameter | Statistic | Screening | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| SSS transformeda | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 34.4 (14.70) | 28.1 (15.00) | 27.2 (15.70) | 24 (16.10) | |
| 95 % CI | (31.6, 37.2) | (25.2, 30.9) | (24.2, 30.3) | (20.8, 27.2) | |
| HRQL transformeda | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 73 (18.80) | 78.1 (18.00) | 78.5 (19.50) | 82.2 (17.30) | |
| 95 % CI | (69.4, 76.6) | (74.7, 81.6) | (74.7, 82.4) | (78.7, 85.6) | |
| Total score | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 79.3 (25.10) | 71.3 (24.40) | 70.6 (26.10) | 65.4 (24.30) | |
| 95 % CI | (74.5, 84.1) | (66.7, 76) | (65.5, 75.7) | (60.5, 70.2) | |
SSS symptom severity score, HRQL health-related quality of life
aTransformed scores (SSS and HRQL) can range from 0 to 100. The total score ranges from 37 to a maximum of 185
Summary of adverse events
| Adverse event | Peking ( | Xi’an ( | Overall ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of adverse events | 224 | 142 | 366 |
| Patients with at least one SAE | 1 (1.7 %) | 5 (10.2 %) | 6 (5.6 %) |
| Total number of serious AEs | 2 (0.9 %) | 8 (5.7 %) | 10 (2.7 %) |
| Pregnancy | 1 (1.7 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | 4 (3.7 %) |
| Termination of pregnancy | 1 (1.7 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | 4 (3.7 %) |
| Ductal carcinoma | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) |
| Fibroid surgery | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) |
| Patients with at least one AE | 45 (77.6 %) | 38 (77.6 %) | 83 (77.6 %) |
| Total number of related AEs | 52 (23.2 %) | 107 (74.8 %) | 159 (43.3 %) |
| Abdominal/pelvic pain | 30 (51.7 %) | 30 (61.2 %) | 60 (56.1 %) |
| Skin heating/pain | 25 (43.1 %) | 10 (20.4 %) | 35 (32.7 %) |
| Leg pain | 15 (25.9 %) | 5 (10.2 %) | 20 (18.7 %) |
| Back pain | 11 (19.0 %) | 2 (4.1 %) | 13 (12.1 %) |
| Abdominal distension | 3 (5.2 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | 4 (3.7 %) |
| Buttock pain | 4 (6.9 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 4 (3.7 %) |
| Leg numbness | 3 (5.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 3 (2.8 %) |
| Skin redness | 1 (1.7 %) | 2 (4.1 %) | 3 (2.8 %) |
| 1st degree skin burn | 1 (1.7 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) |
| Leg edema/pain | 1 (1.7 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) |
| Pubic bone pain | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) |
| Skin edema | 1 (1.7 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (0.9 %) |