Contrast‑enhanced ultrasound is better than magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the short‑term results of microwave ablation treatment of uterine fibroids

Yan Zhang, Meiwu Zhang, Xiaoxiang Fan, Dafeng Mao
2017 Oncology Letters  
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared in evaluating the short-term effects of microwave ablation (MWA) on uterine fibroids. A total of 60 patients with uterine fibroids treated by MWA were enrolled in the experimental group during their two-year follow-up period according to the inclusion criteria. Conventional two-dimensional US, MRI and CEUS were performed to determine the volume reduction and the fibroid residue by displaying the size, echo
more » ... g the size, echo and signal intensity of fibroids prior to and after MWA treatment. As the control group, 60 consecutive patients were recruited on their follow-up visit at least two years after MWA treatment of uterine fibroids. Significant differences were observed in the wash-in rate (WiR) of the fibroid tissue, start time difference, rise time ratio (RTR) and WiR ratio between the experimental and control groups (P<0.05). However, the WiR of fibroid vessel, total area under the curve of fibroid vessel and tissue, and rise time difference (RTD) between fibroid vessel and tissue did not display any significant differences between the two groups. Fibroids were either reduced in volume or cured by MWA therapy in patients with uterine fibroids. The reductions in volume of hypointense, isointense and hyperintense fibroids were 62.42±18.13, 53.27±10.05 and 47.43±9.56%, respectively, on T1-weighted imaging (T1WI). On T2WI, the corresponding reductions were 67.32±32.63, 59.36±19.36 and 42.63±10.37%, respectively. The higher the signal intensity on T1WI and T2WI, the lower the reduction in volume. It is indicative that different blood supply to fibroids results in different ablation. CEUS was proved to be more effective than MRI in evaluating the effects of MWA on uterine fibroids during the first postoperative year.
doi:10.3892/ol.2017.7008 fatcat:nmguqd5dwney5jyr3dqalbd6pq