Comparison of Imaging Changes and Pain Responses in Patients with Intra- or Extraosseous Bone Metastases Treated Palliatively with Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity–Focused Ultrasound

PurposeThis study compared changes in imaging and in pain relief between patients with intraosseous, as opposed to extraosseous bone metastases. Both groups were treated palliatively with magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity–focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU).Materials and MethodsA total of 21 patients were treated prospectively with MRgHIFU at 3 centers. Intraprocedural thermal changes measured using proton resonance frequency shift (PRFS) thermometry and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted (Gd-T1W) image appearances after treatment were compared for intra- and extraosseous metastases. Pain scores and use of analgesic therapy documented before and up to 90 days after treatment were used to classify responses and were compared between the intra- and extraosseous groups. Gd-T1W changes were compared between responders and nonresponders in each group.ResultsThermal dose volumes were significantly larger in the extraosseous group (P = 0.039). Tumor diameter did not change after treatment in either group. At day 30, Gd-T1W images showed focal nonenhancement in 7 of 9 patients with intraosseous tumors; in patients with extraosseous tumors, changes were heterogeneous. Cohort reductions in worst-pain scores were seen for both groups, but differences from baseline at days 14, 30, 60, and 90 were only significant for the intraosseous group (P = 0.027, P = 0.013, P = 0.012, and P = 0.027, respectively). By day 30, 67% of patients (6 of 9) with intraosseous tumors were classified as responders, and the rate was 33% (4 of 12) for patients with extraosseous tumors. In neither group was pain response indicated by nonenhancement on Gd-T1W.ConclusionsIntraosseous tumors showed focal nonenhancement by day 30, and patients had better pain response to MRgHIFU than those with extraosseous tumors. In this small cohort, post-treatment imaging was not informative of treatment efficacy.     

FDG PET in Preoperative Assessment of Colorectal Liver Metastases Combining “Evidence-Based Practice” and “Technology Assessment” Methods to Develop Departmental Imaging Protocols: Should FDG PET Be Routinely Used in the Preoperative Assessment of Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases?

In today's environment of progressively evolving and expensive imaging modalities, radiologists are asked to justify the use of resources to patients, referring physicians, hospital management, and third party payers. With this aim, the radiologist may use "top-down" or "bottom-up" "evidence-based practice" (EBP) techniques. "Top-down" suggests that the practitioner should wait until a higher authority, external to their practice, generates a solution to practice dilemmas (e.g., National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE] guidelines). "Bottom-up" however, is based on the theory that the ordinary practitioner is best served by a decentralized approach to problem solving that is internal to their practice. The technology assessment framework modeled by Mackenzie and Dixon comprehensively assesses the effects of imaging using levels of efficacy including diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact, and therapeutic impact, impact on health and cost effectiveness. In this article, we describe how issues regarding new imaging modalities in ordinary radiology practice can be addressed by using stepwise "bottom-up" EBP techniques combined with the technology assessment framework. We also detail how EBP techniques form an integral part of practice-based learning among radiology residents as part of noninterpretive residency training. The following clinical scenario is used: your hospital's chief hepatobiliary surgeon writes to your department regarding the lack of access to 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases under consideration for hepatic resection. How would you approach this problem? Here is how we would do it.