4.3 Article

Prospective clinical trial on the learning curve of high-intensity-focused ultrasound for the treatment of breast fibroadenoma

Journal

SURGERY TODAY
Volume 52, Issue 7, Pages 1048-1053

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02421-3

Keywords

Fibroadenoma; High-intensity-focused ultrasound; Learning curve

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Hong Kong Seed Fund [201606159012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that treatment outcomes and treatment time for breast fibroadenoma significantly improved after approximately 40 HIFU procedures.
Introduction High-intensity-focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a safe and feasible treatment option for breast fibroadenoma. However, its learning curve has not been described in the medical literature. Methods All patients with biopsy-proven fibroadenoma considered indicated for HIFU were screened for eligibility for HIFU treatment. A total of 60 patients were recruited according to the pre-defined sample size calculation. Results Sixty consecutive patients were divided into three cohorts in chronological order. The mean tumor volume shrinkage rates in cohorts 1, 2, and 3 at 6 months post-HIFU ablation were 38%, 34%, and 59%, respectively. Significant tumor shrinkage was observed from case 41 onward (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean tumor volume shrinkage rates in cohorts 1, 2, and 3 at 12 months post-HIFU ablation were 45%, 51%, and 71%, respectively. Significant tumor shrinkage was observed from case 41 onwards (p < 0.0473). The mean procedure time for the first 20 patients was 48.5 (range 45-75) minutes, while that in the second 20 patients was 39.7 (range 20-60) minutes, and that in the last 20 patients was 28.9 (range 15-45) minutes. The treatment time was significantly shorter from case 41 onwards (p = 0.0481). Conclusion Treatment outcomes and treatment time improved significantly after performing approximately 40 HIFU procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available