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, 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","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, 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\",\"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}
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.
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.