Cargando…
Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound
PURPOSE: This study compared changes in imaging and in pain relief between patients with intraosseous, as opposed to extraosseous bone metastases. Both groups were treated palliatively with magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity–focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 21 pa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6715806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31101417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019 |
_version_ | 1783447286685106176 |
---|---|
author | Giles, Sharon L. Brown, Matthew R.D. Rivens, Ian Deppe, Martin Huisman, Merel Kim, Young-Sun Farquhar-Smith, Paul Williams, John E. ter Haar, Gail R. deSouza, Nandita M. |
author_facet | Giles, Sharon L. Brown, Matthew R.D. Rivens, Ian Deppe, Martin Huisman, Merel Kim, Young-Sun Farquhar-Smith, Paul Williams, John E. ter Haar, Gail R. deSouza, Nandita M. |
author_sort | Giles, Sharon L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This study compared changes in imaging and in pain relief between patients with intraosseous, as opposed to extraosseous bone metastases. Both groups were treated palliatively with magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity–focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 21 patients were treated prospectively with MRgHIFU at 3 centers. Intraprocedural thermal changes measured using proton resonance frequency shift (PRFS) thermometry and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted (Gd-T1W) image appearances after treatment were compared for intra- and extraosseous metastases. Pain scores and use of analgesic therapy documented before and up to 90 days after treatment were used to classify responses and were compared between the intra- and extraosseous groups. Gd-T1W changes were compared between responders and nonresponders in each group. RESULTS: Thermal dose volumes were significantly larger in the extraosseous group (P = 0.039). Tumor diameter did not change after treatment in either group. At day 30, Gd-T1W images showed focal nonenhancement in 7 of 9 patients with intraosseous tumors; in patients with extraosseous tumors, changes were heterogeneous. Cohort reductions in worst-pain scores were seen for both groups, but differences from baseline at days 14, 30, 60, and 90 were only significant for the intraosseous group (P = 0.027, P = 0.013, P = 0.012, and P = 0.027, respectively). By day 30, 67% of patients (6 of 9) with intraosseous tumors were classified as responders, and the rate was 33% (4 of 12) for patients with extraosseous tumors. In neither group was pain response indicated by nonenhancement on Gd-T1W. CONCLUSIONS: Intraosseous tumors showed focal nonenhancement by day 30, and patients had better pain response to MRgHIFU than those with extraosseous tumors. In this small cohort, post-treatment imaging was not informative of treatment efficacy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6715806 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67158062019-09-04 Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound Giles, Sharon L. Brown, Matthew R.D. Rivens, Ian Deppe, Martin Huisman, Merel Kim, Young-Sun Farquhar-Smith, Paul Williams, John E. ter Haar, Gail R. deSouza, Nandita M. J Vasc Interv Radiol Article PURPOSE: This study compared changes in imaging and in pain relief between patients with intraosseous, as opposed to extraosseous bone metastases. Both groups were treated palliatively with magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity–focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 21 patients were treated prospectively with MRgHIFU at 3 centers. Intraprocedural thermal changes measured using proton resonance frequency shift (PRFS) thermometry and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted (Gd-T1W) image appearances after treatment were compared for intra- and extraosseous metastases. Pain scores and use of analgesic therapy documented before and up to 90 days after treatment were used to classify responses and were compared between the intra- and extraosseous groups. Gd-T1W changes were compared between responders and nonresponders in each group. RESULTS: Thermal dose volumes were significantly larger in the extraosseous group (P = 0.039). Tumor diameter did not change after treatment in either group. At day 30, Gd-T1W images showed focal nonenhancement in 7 of 9 patients with intraosseous tumors; in patients with extraosseous tumors, changes were heterogeneous. Cohort reductions in worst-pain scores were seen for both groups, but differences from baseline at days 14, 30, 60, and 90 were only significant for the intraosseous group (P = 0.027, P = 0.013, P = 0.012, and P = 0.027, respectively). By day 30, 67% of patients (6 of 9) with intraosseous tumors were classified as responders, and the rate was 33% (4 of 12) for patients with extraosseous tumors. In neither group was pain response indicated by nonenhancement on Gd-T1W. CONCLUSIONS: Intraosseous tumors showed focal nonenhancement by day 30, and patients had better pain response to MRgHIFU than those with extraosseous tumors. In this small cohort, post-treatment imaging was not informative of treatment efficacy. Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology 2019-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6715806/ /pubmed/31101417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019 Text en © 2019 SIR. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Giles, Sharon L. Brown, Matthew R.D. Rivens, Ian Deppe, Martin Huisman, Merel Kim, Young-Sun Farquhar-Smith, Paul Williams, John E. ter Haar, Gail R. deSouza, Nandita M. Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound |
title | Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound |
title_full | Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound |
title_short | Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound |
title_sort | comparison of imaging changes and pain responses in patients with intra- or extraosseous bone metastases treated palliatively with magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity–focused ultrasound |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6715806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31101417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gilessharonl comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT brownmatthewrd comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT rivensian comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT deppemartin comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT huismanmerel comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT kimyoungsun comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT farquharsmithpaul comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT williamsjohne comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT terhaargailr comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound AT desouzananditam comparisonofimagingchangesandpainresponsesinpatientswithintraorextraosseousbonemetastasestreatedpalliativelywithmagneticresonanceguidedhighintensityfocusedultrasound |