磁共振引导的高强度聚焦超声在治疗疼痛的非脊柱骨转移的患者中的适用性

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Renée Hovenier, Derk J. Slotman, Chiara Gasperini, Alice Zamagni, Mira Huhtala, Manon N. G. J. A. Braat, Wietse S. C. Eppinga, Nicolien Kasperts, Erik C. J. Phernambucq, Martijn F. Boomsma, Ingrid M. Nijholt, Roberto Blanco Sequeiros, Alberto Bazzocchi, Alessio G. Morganti, Chrit T. W. Moonen, Clemens Bos, Helena M. Verkooijen, the FURTHER Consortium
{"title":"磁共振引导的高强度聚焦超声在治疗疼痛的非脊柱骨转移的患者中的适用性","authors":"Renée Hovenier,&nbsp;Derk J. Slotman,&nbsp;Chiara Gasperini,&nbsp;Alice Zamagni,&nbsp;Mira Huhtala,&nbsp;Manon N. G. J. A. Braat,&nbsp;Wietse S. C. Eppinga,&nbsp;Nicolien Kasperts,&nbsp;Erik C. J. Phernambucq,&nbsp;Martijn F. Boomsma,&nbsp;Ingrid M. Nijholt,&nbsp;Roberto Blanco Sequeiros,&nbsp;Alberto Bazzocchi,&nbsp;Alessio G. Morganti,&nbsp;Chrit T. W. Moonen,&nbsp;Clemens Bos,&nbsp;Helena M. Verkooijen,&nbsp;the FURTHER Consortium","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/4962457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Purpose:</b> This prospective observational study aims to investigate which proportion of patients with bone metastases referred for External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT) would be able to undergo Magnetic Resonance-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) as alternative to EBRT, and to examine reasons for ineligibility.</p>\n <p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Adult patients with nonspinal bone metastases referred to four radiotherapy departments were included. Local, multidisciplinary teams assessed which patients would be eligible for MR-HIFU. The main reason(s) for ineligibility were categorized as patient-related or lesion-related. A random subsample of 30 ineligible patients were analyzed in detail to identify all reasons of ineligibility.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> Overall, 57 of 741 (8%) nonspinal bone lesions were eligible for MR-HIFU as alternative to EBRT. In total, 153 lesions (21%) in 130 patients were ineligible because of patient-related factors, including curative treatment intent for oligo-metastatic disease (10%), and poor performance status (8%). Of the remaining 588 bone metastases in 526 patients, 531 lesions (470 patients) were ineligible because of lesion-related factors, including ‘lesion too extensive/advanced’ (29%), ‘(impending) pathological fracture’ (15%), ‘no moderate/severe pain from target lesion’ (11%). Proportion of ineligibility varied between centers from 70% to 96%, which was mainly attributable to differences in patient-related factors. Within the random subsample of 30 ineligible patients, 27 patients had multiple reasons for ineligibility.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> A small proportion of patients, referred for EBRT of bone metastases, would be eligible to undergo MR-HIFU as alternative palliation option. Taken together, patients presenting with small, localized lesions in nonspinal regions, primarily seeking pain relief without additional treatment goals are the most promising candidates for this therapy. These factors could be used to triage patients eligible for MR-HIFU, thereby reducing unnecessary screening efforts, enhancing patient selection, and ultimately improve patient management strategies by optimizing the use of MR-HIFU as a treatment option.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/4962457","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eligibility for Magnetic Resonance-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Patients Referred for Radiotherapy on Painful Nonspinal Bone Metastases\",\"authors\":\"Renée Hovenier,&nbsp;Derk J. Slotman,&nbsp;Chiara Gasperini,&nbsp;Alice Zamagni,&nbsp;Mira Huhtala,&nbsp;Manon N. G. J. A. Braat,&nbsp;Wietse S. C. Eppinga,&nbsp;Nicolien Kasperts,&nbsp;Erik C. J. Phernambucq,&nbsp;Martijn F. Boomsma,&nbsp;Ingrid M. Nijholt,&nbsp;Roberto Blanco Sequeiros,&nbsp;Alberto Bazzocchi,&nbsp;Alessio G. Morganti,&nbsp;Chrit T. W. Moonen,&nbsp;Clemens Bos,&nbsp;Helena M. Verkooijen,&nbsp;the FURTHER Consortium\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/ijcp/4962457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><b>Purpose:</b> This prospective observational study aims to investigate which proportion of patients with bone metastases referred for External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT) would be able to undergo Magnetic Resonance-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) as alternative to EBRT, and to examine reasons for ineligibility.</p>\\n <p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Adult patients with nonspinal bone metastases referred to four radiotherapy departments were included. Local, multidisciplinary teams assessed which patients would be eligible for MR-HIFU. The main reason(s) for ineligibility were categorized as patient-related or lesion-related. A random subsample of 30 ineligible patients were analyzed in detail to identify all reasons of ineligibility.</p>\\n <p><b>Results:</b> Overall, 57 of 741 (8%) nonspinal bone lesions were eligible for MR-HIFU as alternative to EBRT. In total, 153 lesions (21%) in 130 patients were ineligible because of patient-related factors, including curative treatment intent for oligo-metastatic disease (10%), and poor performance status (8%). Of the remaining 588 bone metastases in 526 patients, 531 lesions (470 patients) were ineligible because of lesion-related factors, including ‘lesion too extensive/advanced’ (29%), ‘(impending) pathological fracture’ (15%), ‘no moderate/severe pain from target lesion’ (11%). Proportion of ineligibility varied between centers from 70% to 96%, which was mainly attributable to differences in patient-related factors. Within the random subsample of 30 ineligible patients, 27 patients had multiple reasons for ineligibility.</p>\\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> A small proportion of patients, referred for EBRT of bone metastases, would be eligible to undergo MR-HIFU as alternative palliation option. Taken together, patients presenting with small, localized lesions in nonspinal regions, primarily seeking pain relief without additional treatment goals are the most promising candidates for this therapy. These factors could be used to triage patients eligible for MR-HIFU, thereby reducing unnecessary screening efforts, enhancing patient selection, and ultimately improve patient management strategies by optimizing the use of MR-HIFU as a treatment option.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\"2025 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/4962457\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/4962457\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/4962457","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项前瞻性观察性研究旨在调查接受外束放射治疗(EBRT)的骨转移患者中有多少比例能够接受磁共振引导的高强度聚焦超声(MR-HIFU)作为EBRT的替代方案,并检查不合格的原因。材料与方法:纳入4个放疗科室的非脊柱骨转移的成年患者。当地的多学科团队评估了哪些患者符合MR-HIFU的条件。不合格的主要原因被分类为与患者相关或与病变相关。随机抽取30例不符合条件的患者进行详细分析,以确定不符合条件的所有原因。结果:总体而言,741例非脊柱骨病变中有57例(8%)符合MR-HIFU替代EBRT的条件。总共有130例患者中的153个病变(21%)由于患者相关因素不符合条件,包括对低转移性疾病的治愈性治疗意图(10%)和不良表现(8%)。在526例患者中剩余的588例骨转移中,531例病变(470例患者)由于病变相关因素不符合条件,包括“病变过于广泛/进展”(29%)、“(即将发生的)病理性骨折”(15%)、“靶病变无中度/重度疼痛”(11%)。不同中心的不合格比例从70%到96%不等,这主要是由于患者相关因素的差异。在30例不合格患者的随机子样本中,27例患者有多种不合格原因。结论:一小部分接受骨转移EBRT治疗的患者将有资格接受MR-HIFU作为替代的姑息治疗选择。综上所述,在非脊柱区域出现小的、局部病变,主要寻求疼痛缓解而没有额外治疗目标的患者是这种疗法最有希望的候选者。这些因素可用于对符合MR-HIFU条件的患者进行分类,从而减少不必要的筛查工作,加强患者选择,并最终通过优化使用MR-HIFU作为治疗选择来改善患者管理策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Eligibility for Magnetic Resonance-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Patients Referred for Radiotherapy on Painful Nonspinal Bone Metastases

Eligibility for Magnetic Resonance-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Patients Referred for Radiotherapy on Painful Nonspinal Bone Metastases

Purpose: This prospective observational study aims to investigate which proportion of patients with bone metastases referred for External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT) would be able to undergo Magnetic Resonance-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) as alternative to EBRT, and to examine reasons for ineligibility.

Materials and Methods: Adult patients with nonspinal bone metastases referred to four radiotherapy departments were included. Local, multidisciplinary teams assessed which patients would be eligible for MR-HIFU. The main reason(s) for ineligibility were categorized as patient-related or lesion-related. A random subsample of 30 ineligible patients were analyzed in detail to identify all reasons of ineligibility.

Results: Overall, 57 of 741 (8%) nonspinal bone lesions were eligible for MR-HIFU as alternative to EBRT. In total, 153 lesions (21%) in 130 patients were ineligible because of patient-related factors, including curative treatment intent for oligo-metastatic disease (10%), and poor performance status (8%). Of the remaining 588 bone metastases in 526 patients, 531 lesions (470 patients) were ineligible because of lesion-related factors, including ‘lesion too extensive/advanced’ (29%), ‘(impending) pathological fracture’ (15%), ‘no moderate/severe pain from target lesion’ (11%). Proportion of ineligibility varied between centers from 70% to 96%, which was mainly attributable to differences in patient-related factors. Within the random subsample of 30 ineligible patients, 27 patients had multiple reasons for ineligibility.

Conclusion: A small proportion of patients, referred for EBRT of bone metastases, would be eligible to undergo MR-HIFU as alternative palliation option. Taken together, patients presenting with small, localized lesions in nonspinal regions, primarily seeking pain relief without additional treatment goals are the most promising candidates for this therapy. These factors could be used to triage patients eligible for MR-HIFU, thereby reducing unnecessary screening efforts, enhancing patient selection, and ultimately improve patient management strategies by optimizing the use of MR-HIFU as a treatment option.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信