Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Focused Ultrasound Myoma Outcome Study (FUMOS); a retrospective cohort study on long-term outcomes of MR-HIFU therapy

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Since 2004, uterine fibroids have been treated with MR-HIFU, but there are persevering doubts on long-term efficacy to date. In the Focused Ultrasound Myoma Outcome Study (FUMOS), we evaluated long-term outcomes after MR-HIFU therapy, primarily to assess the reintervention rate.

Methods

Data was retrospectively collected from 123 patients treated with MR-HIFU at our hospital from 2010 to 2017. Follow-up duration and baseline (MRI) characteristics were retrieved from medical records. Treatment failures, adverse events, and the nonperfused volume percentage (NPV%) were determined. Patients received a questionnaire about reinterventions, recovery time, satisfaction, and pregnancy outcomes. Restrictive treatment protocols were compared with unrestrictive (aiming for complete ablation) treatments. Subgroups were analyzed based on the achieved NPV < 50 or ≥ 50%.

Results

Treatment failures occurred in 12.1% and the number of adverse events was 13.7%. Implementation of an unrestrictive treatment protocol significantly (p = 0.006) increased the mean NPV% from 37.4% [24.3–53.0] to 57.4% [33.5–76.5]. At 63.5 ± 29.0 months follow-up, the overall reintervention rate was 33.3% (n = 87). All reinterventions were performed within 34 months follow-up, but within 21 months in the unrestrictive group. The reintervention rate significantly (p = 0.002) decreased from 48.8% in the restrictive group (n = 43; follow-up 87.5 ± 7.3 months) to 18.2% in the unrestrictive group (n = 44; follow-up 40.0 ± 22.1 months). The median recovery time was 2.0 [1.0–7.0] days. Treatment satisfaction rate was 72.4% and 4/11 women completed family planning after MR-HIFU.

Conclusions

The unrestrictive treatment protocol significantly increased the NPV%. Unrestrictive MR-HIFU treatments led to acceptable reintervention rates comparable to other reimbursed uterine-sparing treatments, and no reinterventions were reported beyond 21 months follow-up.

Key Points

• All reinterventions were performed within 34 months follow-up, but in the unrestrictive treatment protocol group, no reinterventions were reported beyond 21 months follow-up.

• The NPV% was negatively associated with the risk of reintervention; thus, operators should aim for complete ablation during MR-guided HIFU therapy of uterine fibroids.

• Unrestrictive treatments have led to acceptable reintervention rates after MR-guided HIFU therapy compared to other reimbursed uterine-sparing treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CTCAE:

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

DISC:

Direct skin cooling

MREC:

Medical Research Ethics Committee Board

MR-HIFU:

Magnetic resonance image-guided high-intensity-focused ultrasound

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NPV:

Nonperfused volume

RFA:

Radiofrequency ablation

UAE:

Uterine artery embolization

UMCU:

University Medical Centre Utrecht

References

  1. Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM (2003) High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(1):100–107

  2. Stewart EA (2015) Clinical practice. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 372:1646–1655. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1411029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart EAM, Nicholson WKM, Bradley LM, Borah BJP (2013) The burden of uterine fibroids for African-American women: results of a national survey. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 22:807–816. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2013.4334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Spies JB, Bradley LD, Guido R, Maxwell GL, Levine BA, Coyne K (2010) Outcomes from leiomyoma therapies: comparison with normal controls. Obstet Gynecol 116:641–652. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ed36b3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spilsbury K, Semmens J, Hammond I, Bulsara M (2009) Morbidity outcomes of 78 577 hysterectomies for benign reasons over 23 years. BJOG 116:734–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02094.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kotani Y, Tobiume T, Fujishima R et al (2018) Recurrence of uterine myoma after myomectomy: open myomectomy versus laparoscopic myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 44:298–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hynynen K (2011) MRIgHIFU: a tool for image-guided therapeutics. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:482–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim YS, Lee JW, Choi CH et al (2016) Uterine fibroids: correlation of T2 signal intensity with semiquantitative perfusion MR parameters in patients screened for MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation. Radiology 278:925–935. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015150608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Silberzweig JE, Powell DK, Matsumoto AH, Spies JB (2016) Management of uterine fibroids: a focus on uterine-sparing interventional techniques. Radiology 280:675–692. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016141693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ravina JH, Herbreteau D, Ciraru-Vigneron N et al (1995) Arterial embolisation to treat uterine myomata. Lancet (London, England) 346:671–672

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sandberg EM, Tummers FHMP, Cohen SL, van den Haak L, Dekkers OM, Jansen FW (2018) Reintervention risk and quality of life outcomes after uterine-sparing interventions for fibroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 109:698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.11.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. LeBlang SD, Hoctor K, Steinberg FL (2010) Leiomyoma shrinkage after MRI-guided focused ultrasound treatment: report of 80 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:274–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mindjuk I, Trumm CG, Herzog P, Stahl R, Matzko M (2015) MRI predictors of clinical success in MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) treatments of uterine fibroids: results from a single center. Eur Radiol 25:1317–1328. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-5736-3-S1-O99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Verpalen IM, Anneveldt KJ, Nijholt IM et al (2019) Magnetic resonance-high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) therapy of symptomatic uterine fibroids with unrestrictive treatment protocols: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 120:108700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Duc NM, Keserci B (2018) Review of influential clinical factors in reducing the risk of unsuccessful MRI-guided HIFU treatment outcome of uterine fibroids. Diagn Interv Radiol 24:283–291. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2018.18111

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Fennessy FM, Tempany CM, McDannold NJ et al (2007) Uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery—results of different treatment protocols. Radiology 243:885–893. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433060267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ikink ME, Nijenhuis RJ, Verkooijen HM et al (2014) Volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound versus uterine artery embolisation for treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: comparison of symptom improvement and reintervention rates. Eur Radiol 24:2649–2657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3295-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ikink ME, Voogt MJ, Verkooijen HM et al (2013) Mid-term clinical efficacy of a volumetric magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound technique for treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Eur Radiol 23:3054–3061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2915-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Voogt MJ, Trillaud H, Kim YS et al (2012) Volumetric feedback ablation of uterine fibroids using magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound therapy. Eur Radiol 22:411–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2262-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ikink ME, van Breugel JMM, Schubert G et al (2015) Volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound with direct skin cooling for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: proof-of-concept study. Biomed Res Int 2015:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/684250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Funaki K, Fukunishi H, Funaki T, Sawada K, Kaji Y, Maruo T (2007) Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroids: relationship between the therapeutic effects and signal intensity of preexisting T2-weighted magnetic resonance images. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:1–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.08.030

  22. Funaki KM, Fukunishi HM, Funaki TP, Kawakami CP (2007) Mid-term outcome of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine myomas: from six to twelve months after volume reduction. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:616–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2007.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (2017) Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). Version 5.0. Available via https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2019

  24. Stewart EA, Gostout B, Rabinovici J, Kim HS, Regan L, Tempany CMC (2007) Sustained relief of leiomyoma symptoms by using focused ultrasound surgery. Obstet Gynecol 110:279–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000275283.39475.f6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoon SW, Lee C, Cha SH et al (2008) Patient selection guidelines in MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery of uterine fibroids: a pictorial guide to relevant findings in screening pelvic MRI. Eur Radiol 18:2997–3006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1086-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dobrotwir A, Pun E (2012) Clinical 24 month experience of the first MRgFUS unit for treatment of uterine fibroids in Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56:409–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9485.2012.02376.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Froeling V, Meckelburg K, Schreiter NF et al (2013) Outcome of uterine artery embolization versus MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for uterine fibroids: long-term results. Eur J Radiol 82:2265–2269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.08.045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohr Sasson A, Machtinger R, Mashiach R et al (2018) Long-term outcome of MR-guided focused ultrasound treatment and laparoscopic myomectomy for symptomatic uterine fibroids. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:S63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.09.111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gorny KRP, Borah BJP, Brown DLM, Woodrum DAM, Stewart EAM, Hesley GKM (2014) Incidence of additional treatments in women treated with MR-guided focused US for symptomatic uterine fibroids: review of 138 patients with an average follow-up of 2.8 years. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:1506–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2014.05.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Funaki K, Fukunishi H, Sawada K (2009) Clinical outcomes of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine myomas: 24-month follow-up. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34:584–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7455

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Laughlin-Tommaso SM, Barnard EP, AbdElmagied AM et al (2019) FIRSTT study: randomized controlled trial of uterine artery embolization vs focused ultrasound surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 220:1–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.032

  32. Barnard EP, AbdElmagied AM, Laughlin-Tommaso SK et al (2017) Periprocedural outcomes comparing fibroid embolization and focused ultrasound: a randomized controlled trial and comprehensive cohort analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:500.e1–500.e11

  33. Mara M, Maskova J, Fucikova Z, Kuzel D, Belsan T, Sosna O (2008) Midterm clinical and first reproductive results of a randomized controlled trial comparing uterine fibroid embolization and myomectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Keltz J, Levie M, Chudnoff SSH (2017) Pregnancy outcomes after direct uterine myoma thermal ablation: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24:538–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Okada A, Morita Y, Fukunishi H, Takeichi K, Murakami T (2009) 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 34:579–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim YS, Lim HK, Rhim H (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids: effect of bowel interposition on procedure feasibility and a unique bowel displacement technique. PLoS One 11:e0155670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Keserci B, Duc NM (2018) 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 25:1257–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.01.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hectors SJCG, Jacobs I, Moonen CTW, Strijkers GJ, Nicolay K (2016) MRI methods for the evaluation of high intensity focused ultrasound tumor treatment: current status and future needs. Magn Reson Med 75:302–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jacobs I, Hectors SJCG, Schabel MC, Grüll H, Strijkers GJ, Nicolay K (2015) Cluster analysis of DCE-MRI data identifies regional tracer-kinetic changes after tumor treatment with high intensity focused ultrasound. NMR Biomed 28:1443–1454. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wijlemans JW, Deckers R, van den Bosch MA et al (2013) Evolution of the ablation region after magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation in a Vx2 tumor model. Invest Radiol 48:381–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182820257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Younas K, Hadoura E, Majoko F, Bunkheila A (2016) A review of evidence-based management of uterine fibroids. Obstet Gynaecol 18:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12223

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No grant or financial support was used for this research project. No author had any financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the submitted manuscript. All the authors state that this study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Inez M. Verpalen, Ingrid M. Nijholt & Martijn F. Boomsma

  2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Inez M. Verpalen & Manon N. G. Braat

  3. Department of Gynaecology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jolien P. de Boer

  4. Department of Gynaecology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands

    Marlot Linstra

  5. Department of Gynaecology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Roelien L. I. Pol

  6. Department of Molecular Imaging, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Chrit T. W. Moonen & Lambertus W. Bartels

  7. Image Sciences Institute, Imaging Division, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Lambertus W. Bartels

  8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Arie Franx

Authors
  1. Inez M. Verpalen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jolien P. de Boer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marlot Linstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roelien L. I. Pol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ingrid M. Nijholt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chrit T. W. Moonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lambertus W. Bartels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arie Franx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martijn F. Boomsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Manon N. G. Braat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IV made substantial contribution to the design, interpretation of data, and writing of the manuscript. JP made substantial contribution to the study design and obtaining ethical approval. ML had a major contribution in the collection of data and analyzing of the data. RP made a substantial contribution to the interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript. IN was involved in the analysis and the interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. CM had substantial contribution to the design of the study and revised the manuscript. LB and AF revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. MFB was involved in the interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. MNGB was responsible for the design of the study, facilitated the collection of data and interpretation of the data, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inez M. Verpalen.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is M.F. Boomsma, M.D., Ph.D.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise: I.M. Nijholt, Ph.D. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

The short- and mid-term results of some study subjects have been previously reported in the following:

• Ikink ME, Nijenhuis RJ, Verkooijen HM et al (2014) Volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound versus uterine artery embolisation for treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: comparison of symptom improvement and reintervention rates. Eur Radiol 24:2649–2657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3295-6

• Ikink ME, Voogt MJ, Verkooijen HM et al (2013) Mid-term clinical efficacy of a volumetric magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound technique for treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Eur Radiol 23:3054–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2915-x

• Voogt MJ, Trillaud H, Kim YS et al (2012) Volumetric feedback ablation of uterine fibroids using magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound therapy. Eur Radiol 22:411–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2262-8

• Ikink ME, van Breugel JMM, Schubert G et al (2015) Volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound with direct skin cooling for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: proof-of-concept study. BioMed Research International 2015:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/684250

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Case–control study

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verpalen, I.M., de Boer, J.P., Linstra, M. et al. The Focused Ultrasound Myoma Outcome Study (FUMOS); a retrospective cohort study on long-term outcomes of MR-HIFU therapy. Eur Radiol 30, 2473–2482 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06641-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06641-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation