Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Treatment of Extra-Abdominal Desmoid Tumors: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
Pejman Ghanouni1, Andrew Dobrotwir2, Alberto Bazzocchi3, Matthew Bucknor4, Rachelle Bitton1, Jarrett Rosenberg1, Kristen Telischak5, Maurizio Busacca3, Stefano Ferrari6, Ugo Albisinni3, Shannon Walters1, Kristen Ganjoo7, Alessandro Napoli8, Kim Butts Pauly1, and Raffi Avedian9

1Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 2Radiology, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkview, Australia, 3Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, The Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy, 4Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States, 5Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 6Oncology, The Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy, 7Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 8Radiology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy, 9Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States

Synopsis

Desmoid tumors are benign, but can result in pain and dysfunction. Surgery, radiation and chemotherapy are only only partially effective and can cause significant morbidity. MR guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) was used to treat patients with desmoid tumors, sometimes in lieu of surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. This retrospective multicenter feasibility study of 15 patients demonstrates that MRgFUS is safe and that this technique may be used to control the growth of symptomatic desmoid tumors.

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) for the treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors.

METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. Patients or their representatives provided informed consent before treatment. From March 2011 to January 2015, fifteen patients (6 males, 9 females, mean age: 28 years) with desmoid fibromatosis were treated at four institutions with MRgFUS (25 total treatments) (Figure 1a - e). Changes in total and viable tumor volumes after treatment were measured. Efficacy was defined by the median reduction in viable tumor exceeding a threshold of 50% of the targeted volume. Median decrease after treatment of at least two points in numerical rating scale (NRS) worst and average pain scores was tested. An exact one-sided Wilcoxon test was used for statistical analyses. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Tumor volumes ranged from 4 – 1010 mL. Total tumor volume stabilized or decreased after the treatments (Figure 2a). Viable total tumor volume decreased from 212 ± 286 mL to 96 ± 126 mL after initial treatment (Figure 2b). The median reduction of 63% of the viable targeted tumor volume was significantly beyond our efficacy threshold (P = 0.0013). Pain improved after treatment (worst scores: 7.5 ± 1.9 vs. 2.7 ± 2.6,P = 0.027; average scores: 6 ± 2.3 vs. 1.3 ± 2, P = 0.021). Skin burn was the most common complication.

DISCUSSION

Desmoid tumors are benign, but are locally infiltrative and may cause pain and dysfunction. Standard therapies using surgical resection, radiation and systemic chemotherapy suffer from inadequate efficacy and excessive side effects for treatment of a benign disease1. This multicenter study demonstrates that MRgFUS treatment of desmoids is feasible and that this technique may be used to control the growth of symptomatic desmoid tumors of the extremities, with decrease in both total and viable tumor volumes. In our fifteen patients there was a 63% median reduction in perfused volume of the targeted tumors immediately after treatment; this surpassed our target for feasibility, which was at least 50% of tumor ablation. Pain related to the tumors also improved, with a 64% decline in maximum pain scores after tumor ablation. There does not appear to be a cumulative toxicity limit to surrounding normal structures, allowing re-treatment as necessary to ablate residual or recurrent tumor. Treatment with MRgFUS does not appear to accelerate the growth of the tumor, which was a theoretical concern given the possibility that trauma or surgery may lead to tumor progression2. MRgFUS treatment was feasible after surgery or chemoradiation, and was also combined successfully with other treatment modalities, such as chemotherapy and cryoablation, to treat remaining tumor.

CONCLUSION

This series of 15 patients treated at multiple institutions demonstrates that MR-guided focused ultrasound can achieve durable local control of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. Because it is non-invasive and repeatable, MRgFUS may provide a useful way to treat desmoid tumors while avoiding the morbidities of surgery, radiation and systemic chemotherapy.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1. Gronchi A, Colombo C, Le Pechoux C, et al. Sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis: a stepwise approach to a non-metastasising neoplasm--a position paper from the Italian and the French Sarcoma Group. Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb 24;25(3):578–583.

2. Avedian RS, Bitton R, Gold G, Butts Pauly K, Ghanouni P. Is MR-guided High-intensity Focused Ultrasound a Feasible Treatment Modality for Desmoid Tumors? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun 2. Epub ahead of print.

Figures

Figure 1a. Axial post-contrast T1 weighted fat suppressed image obtained prior to treatment shows bulky tumor (white arrow) in a 14 year old with recurrent, painful desmoid tumor in the right buttock, posterior to the hip joint.

Figure 1b. Axial postcontrast T1 weighted fat suppressed image obtained immediately after MRgFUS treatment shows the nonperfused volume of the ablated tumor (white arrow); 74% (73 of 98 mL) of the tumor was ablated. There is an area of non-perfusion in the gluteus maximus muscle (between red arrows) that resulted from near-field heating in the muscle. Periosteal hyperemia from far-field heating is also present in the posterior ischium (yellow arrow).

Figure1c. Axial post-contrast T1 weighted fat suppressed image obtained 1 year after treatment shows recurrent tumor (white arrow) posterior to the ischium. The hypoperfused area in the gluteal muscle is smaller (red asterisk), compatible with healing.

Figure 1d. Axial post-contrast T1 weighted fat suppressed image shows ablation of the recurrent tumor (white arrow).

Figure 1e. Axial post-contrast T1 weighted fat suppressed image obtained 23 months after initial treatment, by which time he had received 4 total treatments to the tumor in his buttock and thigh. No solid enhancing component is evident to indicate residual tumor in the buttock at this time(white arrow). Overall, the enhancing volume has declined from 98 cc to 4 cc (96% decline). The patient’s pain also improved.

Figure 2a: Decline in tumor volumes after ablation. Total tumor volumes are plotted relative to time. The vertical dashed line in each graph indicates the initial treatment, and black arrows indicate subsequent MRgFUS treatments. After MRgFUS treatment, the total tumor volume stabilized or declined; when tumor regrowth was seen, another treatment was performed.

Figure 2b: Decline in tumor volumes after ablation. Viable tumor volumes are plotted relative to time. The vertical dashed line in each graph indicates the initial treatment, and black arrows indicate subsequent MRgFUS treatments. Red curves or data points show the enhancing tumor volume prior to treatment, and the blue lines represent remaining enhancing volume after treatment.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
0553