Pejman Ghanouni1, Sirish Kishore1, Matthew Lungren1, David Mohler2, Raffi Avedian2, and David Hovsepian1
1Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 2Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
Synopsis
Low flow vascular malformations are typically treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous sclerotherapy, but not all of these lesions are visible sonographically. MR guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) combines the ability of MRI to delineate these tumors with the use of FUS to ablate the tumor non-invasively. We report our technical and clinical results after using MRgFUS to treat four patients with small intramuscular low flow vascular malformations in the lower extremities. PURPOSE
To assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of
MR guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as a non-invasive treatment modality for
vascular malformations that are technically difficult to treat by conventional
treatment modalities.
METHODS
All lesions were slow-flow
vascular malformations that were difficult to localize on physical examination
and lacked sonographically apparent blood vessels or cystic spaces, precluding percutaneous
sclerosis/ethanol ablation or surgical resection. After review by an orthopedic
surgeon and an interventional radiologist for treatment, cases were referred for consideration of treatment using MRgFUS. Tumors were selected for MRgFUS based on accessibility of the tumor to the focused ultrasound beam based on assessment of the pre-operative MRI; tumors also had to maintain a distance of 1cm from the skin and major nerves and have a volume less than 20mL. The volume limitation was chosen based on experience such that the treatment could be completed within 3 hours. Written informed consent was obtained from all
subjects. Ablations were performed using the InSightec ExAblate 2100 MRgFUS device; this was an off-label application of the system.
Sonication planning was performed manually by the treating physician (PG, with
4 years of experience using the MRgFUS system). Thermal dose maps were
monitored to confirm heating of the lesion, and energy was adjusted to avoid
tissue cavitation. Patients were evaluated prior to the procedure, on the day
of treatment, and up to 12 months post-procedure. Pre-procedure and
post-procedure MRIs were also obtained, as well as clinical assessment of pain
and functional status before and after the procedure.
RESULTS
Four patients were treated, three males and one
female, with a median age of 33 years (range 18-54). Three lesions were located in
the thigh and one in the calf. The median maximal lesion dimension was 1.4cm
(range 1.1-4cm), with patients demonstrating a T2 hyperintense, heterogeneously enhancing mass on pre-procedure imaging. The ExAblate 2100 transducer was operated at 0.95-1MHz with an with an average of 1521 ± 578J median energy per sonication for each lesion (range 658-1878J) . Mean number of
sonications was 42 (range 14-56). Average duration of individual sonications
was 12.2sec (range 7.7-20sec). The averages of the values of
temperatures achieved in the targeted tissue during individual sonications were
50°C (average) and 54°C
(maximum). The average treatment time was 142min (range 64-202min).
There was a median follow-up period of 7 months
(range 4-12). No serious adverse events occurred. There was a significant reduction
in maximum daily pain on a ten-point scale (8.8±1.5 to 2±2.3,P=0.020) with a mean reduction of 76% in
maximal pain. Tumor volumes prior to treatment were 4.9±5mL (range 0.4-10.1mL). After treatment, the mean
non-perfused volume (NPV) was 6.8±1.9mL (range 5.1-8.4mL). The mean ratio
of the initial tumor volume to the non-perfused volume (NPVR) after ablation
was 6±6.2 (range 0.5-13) There was a significant reduction
in mean maximal lesion dimension after FUS (2.0±1.4cm to
0.5±1.1cm,P=0.003) with complete resolution of lesional
enhancement in three patients and partial reduction in one patient. Two
patients had complete resolution of their symptoms and of
lesional enhancement (
Fig.1-2). Two patients had partial pain relief. One of these patients had no residual tumor on MRI (
Fig.3), but had muscle
atrophy due to long-term disuse secondary to tumor-related pain. This pain is
slowly improving with physical therapy to strengthen the leg. The second patient a symptom-free period that lasted 4 months, and then developed recurrent pain. MRI showed residual lesional enhancement, likely due to proximity of part of the tumor to neurovascular
structures at the time of first treatment (
Fig.4). This patient had an NPVR of 0.5; all
other patients had an NPVR greater than 1. A second treatment is planned in
this case to allow access to the remaining tumor by changing patient position.
CONCLUSION
Soft tissue vascular malformations (VM) are the most common pediatric soft tissue tumors
1. These tumors are classified based on flow dynamics. For low-flow VMs, percutaneous sclerotherapy or surgery are standard treatment options, but each have an approximately 10% recurrence rate. Percutaneous sclerotherapy is limited to lesions that are sonographically visible. By combining the ability of MRI to visualize these lesions and of FUS to ablate them, MRgFUS appears to be a promising non-invasive
treatment modality to treat vascular malformations
2,3. This pilot series selected tumors that were not amenable to other treatments, and is the largest demonstrating the potential
of MRgFUS to treat vascular malformations. A larger sample with longer
follow up is required to establish the safety and efficacy of this modality and to
determine the specific types of lesions that should be selected for treatment
with MRgFUS
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Flors L, Leiva-Salinas C, Maged IM, Norton PT, Matsumoto AH, Angle JF, et al. MR imaging of soft-tissue vascular malformations: diagnosis, classification, and therapy follow-up. Radiographics. 2011 Aug 28;31(5):1321–40.
2. van der Linden E, Overbosch J, Kroft LJM. Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Symptomatic Low-flow Vascular Malformations after Previous Unsuccessful Therapy. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2005 May;16(5):747–50.
3. Cornelis F, Neuville A, Labrèze C, Kind M, Bui B, Midy D, et al. Percutaneous Cryotherapy of Vascular Malformation: Initial Experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Jun 22;36(3):853–6.