BackgroundMagnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) has recently emerged as an effective treatment option for painful bone metastases. We describe here the first experience with volumetric MR-HIFU for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases and evaluate the technique on three levels: technical feasibility, safety, and initial effectiveness.MethodsIn this observational cohort study, 11 consecutive patients (7 male and 4 female; median age, 60 years; age range, 53–86 years) underwent 13 treatments for 12 bone metastases. All patients exhibited persistent metastatic bone pain refractory to the standard of care. Patients were asked to rate their worst pain on an 11-point pain scale before treatment, 3 days after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. Complications were monitored. All data were prospectively recorded in the context of routine clinical care. Response was defined as a ≥2-point decrease in pain at the treated site without increase in analgesic intake. Baseline pain scores were compared to pain scores at 3 days and 1 month using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For reporting, the STROBE guidelines were followed.ResultsNo treatment-related major adverse events were observed. At 3 days after volumetric MR-HIFU ablation, pain scores decreased significantly (p = 0.045) and response was observed in a 6/11 (55%) patients. At 1-month follow-up, which was available for nine patients, pain scores decreased significantly compared to baseline (p = 0.028) and 6/9 patients obtained pain response (overall response rate 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 35%–88%)).ConclusionsThis is the first study reporting on the volumetric MR-HIFU ablation for painful bone metastases. No major treatment-related adverse events were observed during follow-up. The results of our study showed that volumetric MR-HIFU ablation for painful bone metastases is technically feasible and can induce pain relief in patients with metastatic bone pain refractory to the standard of care. Future research should be aimed at standardization of the treatment procedures and treatment of larger numbers of patients to assess treatment effectiveness and comparison to the standard of care.

BackgroundElectronic applications are increasingly being used in hospitals for numerous purposes.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess differences in the characteristics of patients who choose paper versus electronic questionnaires and to evaluate the data quality of both approaches.MethodsBetween October 2012 and June 2013, 136 patients participated in a study on diagnosis-induced stress and anxiety. Patients were asked to fill out questionnaires at six different moments during the diagnostic phase. They were given the opportunity to fill out the questionnaires on paper or electronically (a combination of tablet and Web-based questionnaires). Demographic characteristics and completeness of returned data were compared between groups.ResultsNearly two-thirds of patients (88/136, 64.7%) chose to fill out the questionnaires on paper, and just over a third (48/136, 35.3%) preferred the electronic option. Patients choosing electronic questionnaires were significantly younger (mean 47.3 years vs mean 53.5 in the paper group, P=.01) and higher educated (P=.004). There was significantly more missing information (ie, at least one question not answered) in the paper group during the diagnostic day compared to the electronic group (using a tablet) (28/88 vs 1/48, P<.001). However, in the week after the diagnostic day, missing information was significantly higher in the electronic group (Web-based questionnaires) compared to the paper group (41/48 vs 38/88, P<.001).ConclusionsYounger patients and patients with a higher level of education have a preference towards filling out questionnaires electronically. In the hospital, a tablet is an excellent medium for patients to fill out questionnaires with very little missing information. However, for filling out questionnaires at home, paper questionnaires resulted in a better response than Web-based questionnaires.

BackgroundMagnetic resonance (MR)-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound has emerged as a clinical option for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases, with MR thermometry (MRT) used for treatment monitoring. In this study, the general image quality of the MRT was assessed in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and apparent temperature variation. Also, MRT artifacts were scored for their occurrence and hampering of the treatment monitoring.MethodsAnalyses were performed on 224 MRT datasets retrieved from 13 treatments. The SNR was measured per voxel over time in magnitude images, in the target lesion and surrounding muscle, and was averaged per treatment. The standard deviation over time of the measured temperature per voxel in MRT images, in the muscle outside the heated region, was defined as the apparent temperature variation and was averaged per treatment. The scored MRT artifacts originated from the following sources: respiratory and non-respiratory time-varying field inhomogeneities, arterial ghosting, and patient motion by muscle contraction and by gross body movement. Distinction was made between lesion type, location, and procedural sedation and analgesic (PSA).ResultsThe average SNR was highest in and around osteolytic lesions (21 in lesions, 27 in surrounding muscle, n = 4) and lowest in the upper body (9 in lesions, 16 in surrounding muscle, n = 4). The average apparent temperature variation was lowest in osteolytic lesions (1.2°C, n = 4) and the highest in the upper body (1.7°C, n = 4). Respiratory time-varying field inhomogeneity MRT artifacts occurred in 85% of the datasets and hampered treatment monitoring in 81%. Non-respiratory time-varying field inhomogeneities and arterial ghosting MRT artifacts were most frequent (94% and 95%) but occurred only locally. Patient motion artifacts were highly variable and occurred less in treatments of osteolytic lesions and using propofol and esketamine as PSA.ConclusionsIn this study, the general image quality of MRT was observed to be higher in osteolytic lesions and lower in the upper body. Respiratory time-varying field inhomogeneity was the most prominent MRT artifact. Patient motion occurrence varied between treatments and seemed to be related to lesion type and type of PSA. Clinicians should be aware of these observed characteristics when interpreting MRT images.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40349-015-0026-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract