Method Article
Magnetic resonance could offer real-time monitoring of the position and temperature of focused ultrasound in thermal ablation for painful bone metastases, regardless of cancer type or previous local treatments. Our innovative method of quality assurance could facilitate the application of this effective and safe treatment.
Bones are one of the most common sites of cancer metastasis, which usually causes pain and impairs quality of life. Radiation therapy combined with opioids is the standard treatment for painful bone metastases. This treatment achieves effective pain control in 60−74% of patients, but limited treatment choices with limited benefits are available for recurrent or residual painful bone metastases after radiotherapy. More than 40% of patients still experience moderate to severe bone pain after reirradiation. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) combines high-intensity focused ultrasound, which achieves thermal ablation of bone metastases and subsequent pain reduction, with real-time magnetic resonance (MR) thermometry to monitor the temperature of anatomic MR images, with an accuracy of 1 °C, spatial resolution of 1 mm, and temporal resolution within 3 s. As well as being increasingly used clinically for controlling metastatic bone pain, the use of MRgFUS for other diseases has also been tested. However, the use of MR software as a thermometer is the only technique available to verify the accuracy of the software and assure energy delivery. Here, we describe an efficient method of quality assurance we developed for thermal detection and energy delivery before each MRgFUS treatment and also propose a modified workflow to expedite the treatment course as well as to reduce patients' pain during the procedure.
Bones are one of the most common sites of cancer metastasis, which usually causes pain and impairs quality of life. Radiation therapy (RT) combined with opioids is the standard treatment for painful bone metastases. This treatment achieves effective pain control in 60−74% of patients1. However, limited treatment choices are available for recurrent or residual metastatic bone pain after RT. Reirradiation, surgical intervention, percutaneous cryoablation, or radiofrequency ablation and increased doses of systemic opioids and analgesics are options with limited indications and usually with side effects. Moreover, these secondary treatments have yielded unsatisfactory results: more than 40% of patients continue to experience moderate to severe bone pain after reirradiation2.
High-intensity focused ultrasound systems integrate ultrasounds from multiple angles into one spot, transferring acoustic energy at ablative temperatures of more than 65 °C3. This noninvasive technique has been used for thermal ablation at various sites and for various types of lesions4,5. Generally, focused ultrasound systems generate acoustic energy at frequencies of 200 kHz-4 MHz6,7, producing an intensity in the focal point on the order of 100-10,000 W/cm2. At these energy levels, the focused ultrasound beams trigger a rise in cell temperature over the treated volume of tissue. The temperature rise varies according to the tissue absorption coefficient, predicted using Arrhenius analysis or the Sapareto-Dewey isoeffect thermal dose relationship. To achieve better control and a more rapid temperature increase, focal volumes of 0.2−5 mm3 are suggested for each sonication. Therefore, the ablation of larger areas requires tiling of multiple sonications to cover a large volume and to create homogeneous thermal damage. In addition to causing damage as a result of thermal effects, focused ultrasound also creates microbubbles because of physical factors such as rectified diffusion in the treated area. When the size of microbubbles reaches a cutoff, they eventually implode, causing microshock waves and affecting surrounding tissues. This parallel nonthermal effect also contributes to tissue injury and tumor necrosis.
Unlike other image guidance techniques, such as ultrasound imaging, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging provides a three-dimensional image of anatomy with clear resolution images of soft tissue and quantitative temperature monitoring. The mapping software of quantitative MR thermometry can calculate the thermal change in degrees Celsius and then superimpose the respective locations onto the anatomic MR images8. By detecting the proton resonance frequency shift in water hydrogen, which corresponds to approximately 0.01 ppm per degree Celsius, the temperature-sensitive MR sequence can control energy deposition, with an accuracy of 1 °C for measurement of thermal changes, a spatial resolution of 1 mm, and a temporal resolution within 3 s9,10. With this extended software, the MR device could provide diagnostic images and also detect thermal changes within seconds, mapping these onto the anatomical images during the whole treatment course. Despite the development of such an innovative technique, few articles describe qualitative security during each treatment course. Here we aim to share our protocol and experiences with MRgFUS.
Taipei Medical University Joint Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study.
NOTE: The same protocol, validated in Kao et al.11, has been used to treat 138 cases between 2015 and 2019. The inclusion criteria for treatment enrollment were 1) the presence of a solitary distinguishable painful bone metastasis; 2) no administration of previous local therapy to the targeted bone lesion; and 3) the ability to access the targeted bone lesion with MRgFUS (Table of Materials). Patients with impending pathological fractures were excluded. Detailed materials and devices are listed in the Table of Materials.
1. Pretreatment consultation and CT-simulation for treatment spot
2. Patient preparation for MRgFUS on treatment day
3. Daily quality assurance (DQA) before MRgFUS
4. Patient positioning and pretreatment MR scanning
5. Treatment contouring and planning
6. Verification and treatment
7. Post-treatment evaluation
A 68-year-old male patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in October 2012. He received a left lobectomy on October 18, 2012, and pathology reported an 8.8 cm HCC. After operation, he experienced lower back pain and soreness, and an MRI on November 2, 2012 revealed a large metastatic mass involving the left sacrum, ilium, and gluteal soft tissue. Because of tumor compression and pain reaching 6 points on the visual analogue scale (VAS), he received RT with 45 Gy in 15 fractions in November 2012, and systemic therapy for metastatic HCC was also prescribed. Six months later, the pelvic metastatic tumor progressed and pain recurred, reaching 7 points on the VAS. A second RT with 25 Gy in 10 fractions in June 2013 and a third RT with 25 Gy in 10 fractions in November 2013 were arranged to treat the progressing tumor. The pain subsided for another 4 months but then recurred, reaching 7 points on the VAS in May 2014.
Because irradiation had previously been administered three times in the same location, MRgFUS was the only treatment option. For a huge pelvic mass over the left side of the pelvis, the treatment on May 27, 2014 used nine sonications of 2987.56 ± 1083.98 J, heating the tumor up to 61.78 ± 7.11 °C in each 20 s sonication (Figure 1). Using CTCAE version 4.0, a Grade 1 skin burn with minimal symptoms was noted, but no intervention was required. The patient's pain level dropped to 4 points on the VAS, which allowed analgesic dosages to be reduced for over 3 months.
However, due to the failure of systemic medication, the residual mass progressed again and caused moderate to severe pain, intermittently reaching 8 points on the VAS 5 months after his first MRgFUS treatment. In the absence of alternatives, the second MRgFUS treatment (Figure 2) was arranged on January 11, 2015 for the same bone metastasis. The treatment plan used 5 sonications with 1638.60 ± 210.67 J, heating the tumor to 64.40 ± 6.31 °C in each 20 s sonication. No adverse effect was noted on this occasion. The patient's pain level decreased to 4 points on the VAS within 1 day, and he was continuously maintained at a level of <4 points on the VAS for over 3 months. He passed away 7 months after the second MRgFUS.
Figure 1: MR image in the 1st treatment. (A) Upper left image shows T2 fat-saturation before treatment and upper right image (B) shows T1 with contrast. The red arrowhead indicates the metastatic tumor over left sacroiliac joint. The lower image (C) is the monitoring image during the treatment, with the left side showing the current sonication spot and the right side showing the energy output and temperature of the sonication spot. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: MRgFUS system showing in the 2nd treatment. System screen showing the intraprocedural MR images and controls (A), the thermal map after sonication (B), and a graph of the calculated temperature elevation during the sonication (C). Tmax = maximum temperature. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Temperature-time curve of MR thermometry and thermoelectric couple. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Several studies have demonstrated that MRgFUS is safe and efficient for controlling pain from recurrent or residual bone metastases after RT12,13. For 64.3-72.0% of patients, metastatic bone pain persists after RT and opioids. Studies have also determined MRgFUS has limited toxicity and a tolerable treatment course.
MRgFUS received approval for use in metastatic bone pain in 2011 by the Conformité Européenne and in 2012 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As well as being increasingly used clinically for controlling metastatic bone pain, MRgFUS has also been investigated for use in other diseases, such as prostate cancer, breast cancer, and essential tremor9. However, use of MR software as a thermometer is the only technique available to verify the accuracy of the software and the safety of the device, which generates a focused ultrasound and delivers energy. Therefore, we demonstrated a treatment course using MRgFUS to treat bone metastases and also investigated an efficient method of providing quality assurance for thermal detection and energy delivery prior to each treatment. In this article, we propose modifications to the workflow currently recommended, which with the help of computed tomography simulation before treatment, could expedite the treatment course and also reduce patient suffering and pain during the procedure.
In our internal investigation, we found the focus error (FE) between the sonication focus and the spot with the highest temperature in the phantom was 1.73 ± 1.21 mm in the right-left (RL) axial, 0.95 ± 0.82 mm in the superior-inferior (SI) axial, and 0.31 ± 0.63 in the anterior-posterior (AP) axes before data quality assurance (DQA). After DQA, FE was significantly reduced to 0.43 ± 0.34 in the RL axial and 0.11 ± 0.22 in the SI axial, with p < 0.01 (pair t test). Our investigation suggested that DQA improves FE by up to 1 mm, with a 95% confidence interval, resulting in an FE of less than 0.5 mm in the SI and AP axes. Furthermore, we also verified the MR thermometry of MRgFUS with an MR-compatible thermoelectric couple (TEC) within a phantom to detect thermal changes. The result suggested that the thermal curve and temperature detection followed the same trend (Figure 3). The small temperature difference between MR thermometry and TEC contributed to quality assurance. Because the TEC is small and the metallic component interferes with image resolution, contouring the exact position of the TEC was difficult. Additional modification of the TEC in the phantom to improve thermal mapping and detection requires further investigation.
In conclusion, MRgFUS appears to be an effective, instant, and safe palliative treatment in patients with metastatic bone pain, especially for recurrent or residual pain. Demand and use for the treatment have been rapidly growing, but quality assurance and improvements to the treatment workflow have been rarely discussed in studies. Here, we describe our procedure and study results for DQA, indicating the value of DQA before each treatment. Using CT simulation before MRgFUS could facilitate workflow and reduce patients' suffering and pain during the procedure.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors thank Renyi Wang, medical physicist, for her help with investigating DQA.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
1L degasseed water pouch | InSightec | ASM001480 | for good ultrasound beam transmission |
CT scan | Philips | Brilliance Big Bore 16 Slice CT, 7387 | Acquire CT images for positioning |
EXABLATE | InSightec | EXABLATE 2000 | System for non-invasive tumor ablation through Focal Ultrasound (FUS) treatment under Magnetic Resonance (MR) guidance |
Gel Pad ASSY | InSightec | SET999014 | Transmission gel pad for single Body treatment. |
MR scan | GE | HDxT | Acquire MR images for contouring and planning |
MRI contrast | Guerbet | Dotarem | Enhance MR for acquiring images |
Patient accessory kit | InSightec | SET000016 | clinical applications single use treatment kit |
Patient plastic drape | InSightec | DTP000067 | Cover the panel of ultrasound transducer. Deposible, hygiene use |
Pelvic RF coil | GE | ASM000956 | Enhance MR for acquiring images |
phantom | ATS Labs ATS Labs Inc | Model TxS-100 | for calibration |
ultrasound transmission gel | InSightec | SET000885 | gel for calibration prior MR-guided FUS treatment |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved