| Literature DB >> 30588202 |
Youn-Jee Chung1, So-Yeon Kang1, Ho Jong Chun2, Sung Eun Rha2, Hyun Hee Cho1, Jang Heub Kim1, Mee-Ran Kim1.
Abstract
Background: Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is one of the minimally-invasive alternatives to hysterectomy for treatment of uterine leiomyomas. There are various factors affecting the outcomes of UAE, but these have only been sporadically studied. Study Objective: To identify factors associated with the efficacy of UAE for the treatment of uterine leiomyoma, and to develop a model for the prediction of treatment response of uterine leiomyomas to UAE. Study design: A retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2) Patients: One hundred ninety-eight patients with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Intervention: UAE Measurements and MainEntities:
Keywords: decision modeling; leiomyoma; magnetic resonance imaging; uterine artery embolization
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30588202 PMCID: PMC6299417 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.28687
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Demographic characteristics of study populations
| Uterus and myoma volume | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-response group(n=48) | High-response group(n=25) | ||
| 25 (52.1) | 13 (52.0) | 0.995 | |
| 44.5 ± 3.8 | 42.6 ± 5.9 | 0.150 | |
| 23.1 ± 3.2 | 23.3 ± 2.9 | 0.830 | |
Clinical characteristics of study populations based on the combination of uterine volume change and leiomyoma volume change
| Uterus and myoma volume | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-response group(n=48) | High-response group(n=25) | ||
| 0.002 | |||
| 4(8.3) | 4(16) | ||
| 35(72.9) | 8(32) | ||
| 9(18.8) | 13(52) | ||
| 0.006 | |||
| 4(8.3) | 4(16) | ||
| 34(70.8) | 8(32) | ||
| 10(20.8) | 13(52) | ||
| 479.6 ± 204.5 | 422.4 ± 178.9 | 0.242 | |
| 6.8 (5.6,8.2) | 4.2 (3.1,5.8) | 0.009 | |
| 21.4 ± 12.4 | 14.6 ± 10 | 0.021 | |
| 6.8 ± 1.8 | 6.8 ± 2.7 | 0.907 | |
| 100.2 (75.6,132.7) | 88 (60,129.1) | 0.584 | |
| 18 (37.5) | 10 (40) | 0.835 | |
| 30 (62.5) | 15 (60) | 0.835 | |
| 256.7 ± 140.4 | 409.3 ± 223.9 | 0.004 | |
| 1.4 ± 0.6 | 1.9 ± 1 | 0.019 | |
| 0.019 | |||
| 31 (64.6) | 9 (36) | ||
| 13 (27.1) | 8 (32) | ||
| 4 (8.3) | 8 (32) | ||
| 1180.7 ± 207.5 | 1274.7 ± 224.8 | 0.079 | |
*geometric mean (95% CI)
Figure 1The distribution of the variables according to the four groups. A. location of leiomyoma, B. location of leiomyoma by FIGO classification, C. total leiomyoma number, D. sum of leiomyomas diameters, E. leiomyoma T2 signal intensity, F. T2 signal intensity ratio (group 1: both TUV and LMV are in low-response group, group 2: TUV in high-response group, TMV in low-response group, group 3: TUV in low-response group, TMV in high-response group, group 4: both TUV and LMV are in high-response group)
Logistic regression analyses about predictors of UAE response
| OR | 95% CI | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.010 | ||||
| Subserosal | 5.487 | 0.794 | 37.392 | |
| Intramural | 1 | |||
| Submucosal | 7.694 | 1.994 | 29.682 | |
| 1.093 | 1.037 | 1.151 | 0.001 | |
Figure 2Validation of the model using ROC curve and box plot. A. ROC curve for validation of the model, B. prediction value for validation of the model (Q1<7.4%, Q2=7.4-14.7%, Q3=14.7-53.4%, Q4>53.4%)