We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Assessing Immediate Therapeutic Response to Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Uterine Fibroids.
Investigative Radiology 2016 January
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to fit and validate screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based prediction models for assessing immediate therapeutic responses of uterine fibroids to MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent from all subjects was obtained for our institutional review board-approved study. A total of 240 symptomatic uterine fibroids (mean diameter, 6.9 cm) in 152 women (mean age, 43.3 years) treated with MR-HIFU ablation were retrospectively analyzed (160 fibroids for training, 80 fibroids for validation). Screening MRI parameters (subcutaneous fat thickness [mm], x1; relative peak enhancement [%] in semiquantitative perfusion MRI, x2; T2 signal intensity ratio of fibroid to skeletal muscle, x3) were used to fit prediction models with regard to ablation efficiency (nonperfused volume/treatment cell volume, y1) and ablation quality (grade 1-5, poor to excellent, y2), respectively, using the generalized estimating equation method. Cutoff values for achievement of treatment intent (efficiency >1.0; quality grade 4/5) were determined based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Prediction performances were validated by calculating positive and negative predictive values.
RESULTS: Generalized estimating equation analyses yielded models of y1 = 2.2637 - 0.0415x1 - 0.0011x2 - 0.0772x3 and y2 = 6.8148 - 0.1070x1 - 0.0050x2 - 0.2163x3. Cutoff values were 1.312 for ablation efficiency (area under the curve, 0.7236; sensitivity, 0.6882; specificity, 0.6866) and 4.019 for ablation quality (0.8794; 0.7156; 0.9020). Positive and negative predictive values were 0.917 and 0.500 for ablation efficiency and 0.978 and 0.600 for ablation quality, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI-based prediction models for assessing immediate therapeutic responses of uterine fibroids to MR-HIFU ablation were fitted and validated, which may reduce the risk of unsuccessful treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent from all subjects was obtained for our institutional review board-approved study. A total of 240 symptomatic uterine fibroids (mean diameter, 6.9 cm) in 152 women (mean age, 43.3 years) treated with MR-HIFU ablation were retrospectively analyzed (160 fibroids for training, 80 fibroids for validation). Screening MRI parameters (subcutaneous fat thickness [mm], x1; relative peak enhancement [%] in semiquantitative perfusion MRI, x2; T2 signal intensity ratio of fibroid to skeletal muscle, x3) were used to fit prediction models with regard to ablation efficiency (nonperfused volume/treatment cell volume, y1) and ablation quality (grade 1-5, poor to excellent, y2), respectively, using the generalized estimating equation method. Cutoff values for achievement of treatment intent (efficiency >1.0; quality grade 4/5) were determined based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Prediction performances were validated by calculating positive and negative predictive values.
RESULTS: Generalized estimating equation analyses yielded models of y1 = 2.2637 - 0.0415x1 - 0.0011x2 - 0.0772x3 and y2 = 6.8148 - 0.1070x1 - 0.0050x2 - 0.2163x3. Cutoff values were 1.312 for ablation efficiency (area under the curve, 0.7236; sensitivity, 0.6882; specificity, 0.6866) and 4.019 for ablation quality (0.8794; 0.7156; 0.9020). Positive and negative predictive values were 0.917 and 0.500 for ablation efficiency and 0.978 and 0.600 for ablation quality, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI-based prediction models for assessing immediate therapeutic responses of uterine fibroids to MR-HIFU ablation were fitted and validated, which may reduce the risk of unsuccessful treatment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app