dc.contributor.author | Giles, SL | |
dc.contributor.author | Brown, MRD | |
dc.contributor.author | Rivens, I | |
dc.contributor.author | Deppe, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Huisman, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Y-S | |
dc.contributor.author | Farquhar-Smith, P | |
dc.contributor.author | Williams, JE | |
dc.contributor.author | Ter Haar, GR | |
dc.contributor.author | deSouza, NM | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-02-26T11:34:03Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-02-21 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2019, 30 (9), pp. 1351 - 1360.e1 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1051-0443 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/3095 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1535-7732 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | |
dc.format | Print-Electronic | |
dc.format.extent | 1351 - 1360.e1 | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Bone Neoplasms | |
dc.subject | Analgesics | |
dc.subject | Pain Measurement | |
dc.subject | Treatment Outcome | |
dc.subject | Palliative Care | |
dc.subject | Prospective Studies | |
dc.subject | Predictive Value of Tests | |
dc.subject | Time Factors | |
dc.subject | Adult | |
dc.subject | Aged | |
dc.subject | Middle Aged | |
dc.subject | Europe | |
dc.subject | Female | |
dc.subject | Male | |
dc.subject | Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional | |
dc.subject | Musculoskeletal Pain | |
dc.subject | Seoul | |
dc.subject | Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy | |
dc.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. | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2019-02-21 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.02.019 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2019-09 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR | |
pubs.issue | 9 | |
pubs.notes | Not 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-status | Published | |
pubs.volume | 30 | |
pubs.embargo.terms | Not known | |
icr.researchteam | Magnetic Resonance | |
icr.researchteam | Therapeutic Ultrasound | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Rivens, Ian | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Ter Haar, Gail | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | deSouza, Nandita | |