Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGiles, SL
dc.contributor.authorBrown, MRD
dc.contributor.authorRivens, I
dc.contributor.authorDeppe, M
dc.contributor.authorHuisman, M
dc.contributor.authorKim, Y-S
dc.contributor.authorFarquhar-Smith, P
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, JE
dc.contributor.authorTer Haar, GR
dc.contributor.authordeSouza, NM
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-26T11:34:03Z
dc.date.issued2019-09
dc.identifier.citationJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2019, 30 (9), pp. 1351 - 1360.e1
dc.identifier.issn1051-0443
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/3095
dc.identifier.eissn1535-7732
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019
dc.description.abstractPurpose 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.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent1351 - 1360.e1
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectBone Neoplasms
dc.subjectAnalgesics
dc.subjectPain Measurement
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectPalliative Care
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subjectTime Factors
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectEurope
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional
dc.subjectMusculoskeletal Pain
dc.subjectSeoul
dc.subjectExtracorporeal Shockwave Therapy
dc.titleComparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity-Focused Ultrasound.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-02-21
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-09
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR
pubs.issue9
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Therapeutic Ultrasound
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Therapeutic Ultrasound
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume30
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamMagnetic Resonanceen_US
icr.researchteamTherapeutic Ultrasounden_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorGiles, Sharonen
dc.contributor.icrauthorRivens, Ianen
dc.contributor.icrauthordeSouza, Nanditaen
dc.contributor.icrauthorTer Haar, Gailen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0