Volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound versus uterine artery embolisation for treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: comparison of symptom improvement and reintervention rates.

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) with that of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for treatment of uterine fibroids. Between January 2010 and January 2013, 51 women with symptomatic uterinefibroids underwent MR-HIFU. Follow-up and MR imaging were compared to 68 women treated with UAE, who fulfilled eligibility criteria for MR-HIFU - e.g., size (≤12cm) and number (≤5)of fibroids. We compared median symptom severity (tSSS), totalhealth-realted qualityoflife (HRQoL) scores, and reintervention rates. The adjusted effect on symptom relief and HRQoL improvement was calculated using multivariable linear regression. Cox regression was applied to calculate the adjusted risk of reintervention between both treatments. Median tSSS improved significantly from baseline to three-month follow-up (P < 0.001) for both MR-HIFU (53.1 (IQR [40.6-68.8]) to 34.4 (IQR [21.9-46.9]) and UAE (65.3 (IQR [56.3-74.2]) to 21.9 (IQR [9.4-34.4]). In addition, significantly better HRQoL scores were observed after three months (P < 0.001). However, in multivariate analysis, UAE had a stronger effect on symptom relief and HRQoLimprovement than MR-HIFU (P < 0.001). Patients treated with MR-HIFU had a 7.1 (95% CI [2.00-25.3]; P = 0.002) times higher risk of reintervention within 12months (18/51 vs. 3/68). Both MR-HIFU and UAE result in significant symptom relief related to uterine fibroids. However, MR-HIFU is associated with a higher risk of reintervention. • This study compared outcomes between volumetric MR-HIFU and UAE for uterinefibroids. • Both MR-HIFU and UAE result in significant symptom relief and qualityoflife improvement. • UAE had a stronger positive effect on theclinical outcomes. • Reintervention rate after MR-HIFU ablation was significantly higher than after UAE.