Comparison of Dose and Effectiveness of a Single-Session Ultrasound-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Uterine Fibroids With Different Sizes

Overview

Journal Front Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2022 Jan 7

PMID 34993130

Citations 3

Authors

Mei-Jie Yang

Ren-Qiang Yu

Jin-Yun Chen

Zhi-Biao Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU) ablation of uterine fibroids with different sizes and explore the effect of uterine fibroid size on dose, which provided dose evaluation for clinicians in accordance with the size of uterine fibroids.

Materials And Methods: A total of 1,000 patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids who received a single-session USgHIFU treatment were enrolled in this study. The size of fibroids was divided into seven groups: 3-4 cm, 4-5 cm, 5-6 cm, 6-7 cm, 7-8 cm, 8-9 cm, and 9-11 cm. The dose was expressed on the basis of the energy efficiency factor (EEF) as the energy required for ablation per unit volume of tissue, and the non-perfused volume ratio (NPVR) was used to assess the effect of HIFU ablation.

Results: The median NPVR of 88.3% (IQR: 80.3%-94.8%) was obtained, and no significant difference was observed among the seven groups. The classification of T2-weighted image signal intensity fibroids in the 4-5 cm group was compared with that in the 6-7 cm and 8-9 cm groups, and the difference was significant ( < 0.05). However, the proportion of T2WI hyperintense signal fibroids had no significant difference among the seven groups ( > 0.05). The median EEF was 3.88 J/mm, and a significant difference was observed among the seven groups of EEF ( < 0.05). The EEF of groups with a fibroid size less than 6 cm was more than double the EEF of groups with a fibroid size above 6 cm. In addition, the EEF of groups with a fibroid size of 4-5 cm and 3-4 cm was 3-4 times higher than those with a fibroid size above 7 cm ( < 0.05).

Conclusions: A single-session HIFU ablation for uterine fibroids of 3-11 cm can obtain an NPVR of more than 80%. The EEF decreased with the increase of the size of uterine fibroids. A fibroid size of 6.5 cm was considered as a clinical meaningful point affecting EEF.

Citing Articles

A systematic review of the side effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids.

Ali M, Raphael Mpehle C, Olusola E, Ratshabedi P, Ragab Shehata A, Ashraf Youssef M Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2024; 37(6):947-956.

PMID: 39440094 PMC: 11492634. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2024.2387497.

Prediction of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)-induced lesion size using the echo amplitude from the focus in tissue.

Zhou Y, Gong X, You Y Phys Eng Sci Med. 2024; 47(4):1349-1359.

PMID: 38822970 DOI: 10.1007/s13246-024-01449-2.

Treatment of Placenta Increta With High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation and Leaving the Placenta : A Multicenter Comparative Study.

Guan X, Huang X, Ye M, Huang G, Xiao X, Chen J Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9:871528.

PMID: 35463039 PMC: 9021530. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.871528.

References

Zhao W, Chen J, Chen W . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI serves as a predictor of HIFU treatment outcome for uterine fibroids with hyperintensity in T2-weighted images. Exp Ther Med. 2016; 11(1):328-334. PMC: 4726924. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2015.2879. View

McDannold N, Tempany C, Fennessy F, So M, Rybicki F, Stewart E . Uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging-based thermometry and thermal dosimetry during focused ultrasound thermal ablation. Radiology. 2006; 240(1):263-72. PMC: 1850234. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2401050717. View

Keserci B, Duc N . The role of T1 perfusion-based classification in magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(12):5299-5308. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4885-x. View

Okada A, Morita Y, Fukunishi H, Takeichi K, Murakami T . Non-invasive magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment of uterine fibroids in a large Japanese population: impact of the learning curve on patient outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34(5):579-83. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7454. View

Stewart E, Rabinovici J, Tempany C, Inbar Y, Regan L, Gostout B . Clinical outcomes of focused ultrasound surgery for the treatment of uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.072. View

Ali M, A R S, Al Hendy A . Elagolix in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2021; 14(4):427-437. PMC: 8262561. DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2021.1900726. View

Peng S, Zhang L, Hu L, Chen J, Ju J, Wang X . Factors influencing the dosimetry for high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids: a retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94(13):e650. PMC: 4554030. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000650. View

Herrmann A, Torres-de la Roche L, Krentel H, Cezar C, de Wilde M, Devassy R . Adhesions after Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Incidence, Risk Factors, Complications, and Prevention. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2020; 9(4):190-197. PMC: 7713662. DOI: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_87_20. View

Xie B, Zhang C, Xiong C, He J, Huang G, Zhang L . High intensity focused ultrasound ablation for submucosal fibroids: A comparison between type I and type II. Int J Hyperthermia. 2015; 31(6):593-9. DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2015.1046406. View

10.

Yin N, Hu L, Xiao Z, Liu C, Chen W, Roberts N . Factors influencing thermal injury to skin and abdominal wall structures in HIFU ablation of uterine fibroids. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018; 34(8):1298-1303. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2018.1433880. View

11.

Keserci B, Duc N, Nadarajan C, Huy H, Saizan A, Wan Ahmed W . Volumetric MRI-guided, high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine leiomyomas: ASEAN preliminary experience. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2020; 26(3):207-215. PMC: 7239360. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2019.19157. View

12.

Zhao W, Chen J, Chen W . Effect of biological characteristics of different types of uterine fibroids, as assessed with T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, on ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014; 41(2):423-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.09.022. View

13.

Keserci B, Duc N . Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters in Predicting the Treatment Outcome of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Uterine Fibroids With an Immediate Nonperfused Volume Ratio of at Least 90. Acad Radiol. 2018; 25(10):1257-1269. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.01.022. View

14.

Fan H, Cun J, Zhao W, Huang J, Yi G, Yao R . Factors affecting effects of ultrasound guided high intensity focused ultrasound for single uterine fibroids: a retrospective analysis. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018; 35(1):534-540. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2018.1511837. View

15.

Wang W, Wang Y, Wang T, Wang J, Wang L, Tang J . Safety and efficacy of US-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of submucosal fibroids. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(11):2553-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2517-z. View

16.

Wang Z, Bai J, Li F, DU Y, Wen S, Hu K . Study of a "biological focal region" of high-intensity focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003; 29(5):749-54. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-5629(02)00785-8. View

17.

Chen J, Li Y, Wang Z, McCulloch P, Hu L, Chen W . Evaluation of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for uterine fibroids: an IDEAL prospective exploration study. BJOG. 2017; 125(3):354-364. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14689. View

18.

Chen W, Tang L, Yang W, Zhang Y, Li J, Xia W . [Study on the efficacy and safety of ultrasound ablation in treatment of uterine fibroids]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2011; 45(12):909-12. View

19.

Liu Z, Gong C, Liu Y, Zhang L . Establishment of a scoring system for predicting the difficulty level of high-intensity focussed ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids. Int J Hyperthermia. 2017; 34(1):77-86. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2017.1325015. View

20.

Yang M, Yu R, Chen W, Chen J, Wang Z . A Prediction of NPVR ≥ 80% of Ultrasound-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation for Uterine Fibroids. Front Surg. 2021; 8:663128. PMC: 8211994. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.663128. View