Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso1, Emily P Barnard1, Ahmed M AbdElmagied1, Lisa E Vaughan2, Amy L Weaver2, Gina K Hesley3, David A Woodrum3, Vanessa L Jacoby4, Maureen P Kohi5, Thomas M Price6, Angel Nieves6, Michael J Miller7, Bijan J Borah8, James P Moriarty9, Krzysztof R Gorny3, Phyllis C Leppert6, Amanda L Severson1, Maureen A Lemens1, Elizabeth A Stewart10. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC. 7. Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC. 8. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 9. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: stewart.elizabeth@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uterine leiomyomas (fibroid tumors) cause considerable symptoms in 30-50% of women and are the leading cause of hysterectomy in the United States. Women with uterine fibroid tumors often seek uterine-preserving treatments, but comparative effectiveness trials are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report treatment effectiveness and ovarian function after uterine artery embolization vs magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery from the Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow study. STUDY DESIGN: The Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow study, which is a randomized controlled trial of uterine artery embolization vs magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery, enrolled premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroid tumors; women who declined randomization were enrolled in a parallel observational cohort. A comprehensive cohort design was used for outcomes analysis. Our target enrollment was 220 women, of which we achieved 41% (n=91) in the randomized and parallel arms of the trial. Primary outcome was reintervention for uterine fibroid tumors within 36 months. Secondary outcomes were change in serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels and standardized measures of fibroid symptoms, quality of life, pain, and sexual function. RESULTS:From 2010-2014, 83 women (mean age, 44.4 years) were treated in the comprehensive cohort design (43 for magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery [27 randomized]; 40 for uterine artery embolization [22 randomized]); baseline clinical and uterine characteristics were similar between treatment arms, except for higher fibroid load in the uterine artery embolization arm. The risk of reintervention was higher with magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery than uterine artery embolization (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-7.79). Uterine artery embolization showed a significantly greater absolute decrease in anti-Müllerian hormone levels at 24 months compared with magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery. Quality of life and pain scores improved in both arms but to a greater extent in the uterine artery embolization arm. Higher pretreatment anti-Müllerian hormone level and younger age at treatment increased the overall risk of reintervention. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a lower reintervention rate and greater improvement in symptoms after uterine artery embolization, although some of the effectiveness may come through impairment of ovarian reserve. Both pretreatment anti-Müllerian hormone level and age are associated with risk of reintervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00995878, clinicaltrials.gov.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Uterine leiomyomas (fibroid tumors) cause considerable symptoms in 30-50% of women and are the leading cause of hysterectomy in the United States. Women with uterine fibroid tumors often seek uterine-preserving treatments, but comparative effectiveness trials are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report treatment effectiveness and ovarian function after uterine artery embolization vs magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery from the Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow study. STUDY DESIGN: The Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow study, which is a randomized controlled trial of uterine artery embolization vs magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery, enrolled premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroid tumors; women who declined randomization were enrolled in a parallel observational cohort. A comprehensive cohort design was used for outcomes analysis. Our target enrollment was 220 women, of which we achieved 41% (n=91) in the randomized and parallel arms of the trial. Primary outcome was reintervention for uterine fibroid tumors within 36 months. Secondary outcomes were change in serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels and standardized measures of fibroid symptoms, quality of life, pain, and sexual function. RESULTS: From 2010-2014, 83 women (mean age, 44.4 years) were treated in the comprehensive cohort design (43 for magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery [27 randomized]; 40 for uterine artery embolization [22 randomized]); baseline clinical and uterine characteristics were similar between treatment arms, except for higher fibroid load in the uterine artery embolization arm. The risk of reintervention was higher with magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery than uterine artery embolization (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-7.79). Uterine artery embolization showed a significantly greater absolute decrease in anti-Müllerian hormone levels at 24 months compared with magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery. Quality of life and pain scores improved in both arms but to a greater extent in the uterine artery embolization arm. Higher pretreatment anti-Müllerian hormone level and younger age at treatment increased the overall risk of reintervention. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a lower reintervention rate and greater improvement in symptoms after uterine artery embolization, although some of the effectiveness may come through impairment of ovarian reserve. Both pretreatment anti-Müllerian hormone level and age are associated with risk of reintervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00995878, clinicaltrials.gov.
Authors: Annefleur M de Bruijn; Willem M Ankum; Jim A Reekers; Erwin Birnie; Sanne M van der Kooij; Nicole A Volkers; Wouter J K Hehenkamp Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: V Froeling; K Meckelburg; N F Schreiter; C Scheurig-Muenkler; J Kamp; M H Maurer; A Beck; B Hamm; T J Kroencke Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Zaraq Khan; Amy L Weaver; Carin Y Smith; Walter A Rocca; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Menopause Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Erica E Marsh; Geraldine E Ekpo; Eden R Cardozo; Maureen Brocks; Tanaka Dune; Leeber S Cohen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Nicole A Volkers; Wouter Bartholomeus; Sjoerd de Blok; Erwin Birnie; Jim A Reekers; Willem M Ankum Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Shannon K Laughlin; Donna D Baird; David A Savitz; Amy H Herring; Katherine E Hartmann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Jane Daniels; Lee J Middleton; Versha Cheed; William McKinnon; Dikshyanta Rana; Fusun Sirkeci; Isaac Manyonda; Anna-Maria Belli; Mary Ann Lumsden; Jonathan Moss; Olivia Wu; Klim McPherson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 4.106
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: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Bethea A Kleykamp; Jerry Draper-Rodi; Jan Vollert; Jessica Chan; McKenzie Ferguson; Ewan McNicol; Jules Phalip; Scott R Evans; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Andrew S C Rice Journal: Pain Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Luz Angela Torres-de la Roche; Sarah Rafiq; Rajesh Devassy; Hugo Christian Verhoeven; Sven Becker; Rudy Leon De Wilde Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 4.241
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