Tolerance and efficacy of HIFU ablation for uterine fibroids NPVR ≥ 90%: a nested case-control study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Enhanced MR images of uterine fibroids with different ablation rates (NPVR) after HIFU treatment (a) For anterior uterine fibroids, no perfusion volume (NPV) was 48.1 cm³, and NPVR was 62.3%. (b) Anterior uterine fibroids, with NPV of 69.1 cm³ and NPVR of 72.0%; (c) Anterior uterine fibroids, with NPV of 90.2 cm³ and NPVR of 88.9%; (d) Anterior uterine fibroids, NPV 69.2 cm³, NPVR 99.6%.

Table 1. Comparison of SIR-B lower abdominal pain in patients with different NPVR groups.

Group	Number of cases	No SIR-B abdominal pain (n = 1164)	SIR-B abdominal pain (n = 188)	P
Subgroup				0.000
NPVR ≥ 90%	761	628 (82.5)	133 (17.5)
NPVR < 90%	591	536 (90.7)	55 (9.3)
Subgroup				0.000
< 70%	145	133 (91.7)	12 (8.3)
70%–80%	155	145 (93.6)	10 (6.5)
80%–90%	291	258 (88.7)	33 (11.3)
90%–100%	761	628 (82.5)	133 (17.5)

Note: Data is represented by (n, %). NPVR (non-perfused volume ratio). p = 0.015. < 70% vs 70% −80%, p = 0.545; < 70% vs 80%–90%, p = 0.322; < 70% vs 90%–100%, p = 0.006; 70%–80% vs 80%–90%, p = 0.096; 70%–80% vs 90%–100%, p = 0.001; 80%–90% vs 90%–100%, p = 0.015.

Table 2. Logistics regression analysis of NPVR and SIR-B lower abdominal pain.

NPVR	B	S.E.	Wald	P	Exp(B)	95% CI
						Lower	Upper
90%–100%			19.699	0
<70%	−0.853	0.316	7.283	0.007	0.426	0.229	0.792
70%–80%	−1.122	0.341	10.851	0.001	0.326	0.167	0.635
80%–90%	−0.504	0.208	5.874	0.015	0.604	0.402	0.908

Note: NPVR: non-perfused volume ratio.

Table 3. UFS-QoL comparison of patients in different NPVR groups.

NPVR	< 90%			≥ 90%	P
	< 70%	70%–80%	80%–90%
UFS
Baseline	15.6 (7.8,26.6)	15.6 (6.3,25.0)	15.6 (9.4,25.0)	18.8 (9.4,31.3)	0.015
6th month	9.4 (3.1,10.6)	9.4 (6.3, 12.5)	9.4 (3.1, 12.5)	9.4 (3.1, 12.5)	0.975
12th month	8.6 (6.3, 8.6)	8.6 (3.1, 8.6)	8.6 (3.1, 8.6)	8.6 (3.1, 8.6)	0.913
Absolute difference at 6 months	−6.3 (1.2, −15.6)	−6.3 (1.2, −14.4)	−6.3 (1.2, −15.6)	−9.4 (0, −18.8)	0.610
Absolute difference at 12 months	−9.4 (0, −16.4)	−7.0 (−0.8, −15.6)	−7.0 (0, −18.8)	−9.4 (−3.1, −20.7)	0.009
QoL
Baseline	75.9 (63.8,83.6)	72.4 (60.4,81.9)	74.1 (61.2,85.4)	75.0 (63.4, 85.4)	0.544
6th month	81.9 (78.1,91.4)	81.9 (75.0,87.9)	82.8 (78.5,91.4)	81.9 (76.7, 90.5)	0.107
12th month	84.8 (84.8,86.2)	84.8 (84.8,91.4)	84.8 (84.8,91.4)	84.8 (84.8, 92.2)	0.220
Absolute difference at 6 months	9.1 (−0.4, 20.7)	9.1 (−2.6, 20.7)	7.8 (0, 19.9)	6.9 (−1.3, 18.1)	0.501
Absolute difference at 12 months	9.0 (−1.6, 20.0)	14.2 (0.9, 23.3)	10.4 (0, 22.8)	9.8 (0.9, 21.1)	0.231

Note: NPVR: non-perfused volume ratio. Data were expressed as M (P25, P75).

Table 4. Correlation analysis of 12 – month UFS improvement and NPVR.

	B	S.E.	Beta	T	P	95% CI
						Lower	Upper
Constant	4.812	2.337		2.059	0.04	0.227	9.397
NPVR	0.073	0.026	0.076	2.788	0.005	0.022	0.125

Note: NPVR: non-perfused volume ratio.