Abstract
Purpose
To assess the impact of pre-procedural evaluation of patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids and adenomyosis in interventional radiology (IR) clinic.
Method
In this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, consecutive patients evaluated in the IR clinic in a tertiary academic hospital between 1/1/2015 and 9/30/2018 by a single board-certified interventional radiologist were included. Medical records were reviewed to obtain medical history, imaging and endometrial biopsies results. Impact of IR clinic assessment of clinical, imaging, and pathological findings on patient’s clinical course was assessed. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
208 consecutive patients were evaluated in clinic for uterine fibroids 176/208 (85%), adenomyosis 8/208 (4%) or both 24/208 (11%) with age of 44.4 ± 5.8 years and BMI of 30.1 ± 8.6 kg/m2. Leading presenting symptom was menorrhagia in 172/208 (80%) patients, pelvic pain in 91/208 (44%), and urinary symptoms in 88/208 (42%) patients. 159/208 (76%) patients underwent UAE, 12/208 (6%) patients underwent surgery, and 37/208 (18%) patients chose conservative management. 189/208 (91%) patients had pelvic MRI that altered management course in 7/189 (4%) patients due to intracavitary fibroids in two patients, endometrial polyps in two patients, non-enhancing fibroids in two patients, and adnexal mass in one patient. 166/208 (80%) underwent endometrial biopsy that altered management course in one patient (0.6%) due to endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.
Conclusion
Endometrial biopsy and pelvic MRI are helpful to detect cases of non-enhancing fibroids, intracavitary fibroids, and ovarian and endometrial malignancies and thus altered management of five percent of patients with symptomatic fibroids and adenomyosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Uterine arterial embolization (UAE) is a minimally invasive, safe, and effective uterine-preserving treatment for symptomatic fibroids [1,2,3,4]. Since first reported by Ravina et al. in 1995, many studies have confirmed safety and efficacy of UAE as a successful alternative to hormonal therapy and surgery [4, 5].
Interventional radiology (IR) moved away from a purely procedural specialty to become a clinical specialty, involved in the patient’s longitudinal clinical management. An integral part of this change is the widespread role of IR clinic [6]. Siskin et al. [7,8,9] noted that appropriate patient evaluation prior to any IR procedure increases the patients’ satisfaction and technical success rate. SIR standards recommend IR clinic evaluation of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding [10]. Nevertheless, the impact of the pre-UAE clinical evaluation in IR clinic has not been reported in the literature.
Pre-procedural evaluation of patients with menorrhagia in IR clinic is composed of an assessment of patient’s medical history, physical examination, laboratory, pathology, and imaging [11]. This is followed by a review of available treatment options for menorrhagia with their advantages and disadvantages. One may argue that the referring physicians should have already done this assessment and thus interventional radiologists should not spend time on a clinic that brings relatively low revenue, as compared to procedural revenue. Nevertheless, in our experience, further work up is frequently necessary when a woman with abnormal uterine bleeding presents to IR clinic. Most women are referred to IR after menorrhagia evaluation and workup is performed by gynecologists. Sometimes, the workup has only partially been completed, as the referring physician is relying on interventional radiologists to complete the workup specific to UAE. In other cases patients are referred by physicians who may not be familiar with ACOG guidelines, or they are self-referred.
Furthermore, some interventional radiologists (personal communication) feel that pelvic MRI and endometrial biopsy are not necessary in the work up prior to uterine artery embolization. Their reasoning is based on the low yield to alter clinical management and financial and logistical difficulty in obtaining these tests that prevent women from following with the treatment that they need—uterine artery embolization.
Therefore, the purpose of our study was to assess the impact of pre-procedural assessment by interventional radiology in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids and adenomyosis on identifying appropriate or inappropriate candidates for uterine artery embolization.
Materials and methods
This study was conducted with the approval of the institutional review board and was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. The institutional review board waived the requirement for informed consent for the study.
Patients
Consecutive patients with uterine fibroids or/and adenomyosis that were evaluated in IR clinic of a tertiary academic center for potential uterine artery embolization between 1/1/2015 and 9/30/2018 were included in the study. Following data were collected: demographics, including patients’ age, height, weight, BMI, presenting symptoms, history of prior pelvic surgery, anticoagulation, and comorbidities, referring physician if present. According to AHA/ACC/TOS guidelines, we classified patients into four groups regarding their BMI [12]: (1) underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2); (2) normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m2); (3) overweight (25–29.9 kg/m2); and (4) obese (≥ 30 kg/m2). Patients’ comorbidities were calculated using updated Charlson Comorbidity Index [13]. Following findings of pre-procedural assessment specific to UAE were obtained: presence of fibroids, adenomyosis, or both based on MRI and/or US, imaging information, ordering physician for the imaging, referring physicians and the indication for referral, endometrial biopsy, and pathologic findings.
Patient’s clinical course after consultation was evaluated to create five categories of patients: (1) patient proceeded with UAE; (2) medical history and/or physical examination findings precluded UAE; (3) imaging findings precluded UAE; (4) endometrial biopsy results precluded UAE, and (5) patients who decided not to undergo UAE based on personal preference.
IR clinic visit
Patients presented to IR clinic to be evaluated for abnormal uterine bleeding. Patients were evaluated by a trainee (IR fellow or resident) and an IR attending, subspecialized in the women’s health interventions with 7 years of post-fellowship experience. A thorough medical history was obtained. This included the history of present illness, medications, allergies, past medical, surgical, and specific gynecological history relevant to presenting symptoms. A complete physical exam was performed. Pelvic MRI with and without contrast was obtained to evaluate location and vascularity of the fibroids, presence of adenomyosis, or any other abnormality that could explain menorrhagia. If an endometrial biopsy was required per ACOG guidelines [14] and was not performed prior to the IR clinic evaluation, the patient was referred to the gynecologist to obtain an endometrial biopsy. All treatment options for menorrhagia were again discussed with the patient, including the pros and cons of medical management, IUD, surgical management, and uterine artery embolization. A detailed explanation of the uterine artery embolization procedure and its risks, as well as clinical outcomes, was provided. In cases of endometrial polyps or completely intracavitary fibroids on pelvic MRI, a hysteroscopic resection was recommended. An informed consent was obtained from all the patients that desired to proceed with uterine artery embolization. After reviewing all the results (MRI, endometrial biopsy), the final plan was further discussed with the patients on the phone in 70/159 (44%) patients and they were scheduled for the procedure.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were described as mean and standard deviation, median, and range, as appropriate. Categorical variables were described as a percentage. Due to scattered data, median and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for Charlson comorbidity score. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2016.
Results
Two hundred eight consecutive patients were included in this study. Among them 176/208 (85%) patients were referred for uterine fibroids, 8/208 (4%) were referred for adenomyosis, and 24/208 (11%) patients were referred for both. The average age was 44.4 ± 5.8 years; the majority of our patients 169/208 (81%) were premenopausal. BMI ranged from 16.6 to 66.1 kg/m2, with an average of 30.1 ± 8.6 kg/m2; and the majority of the patients (70%) were either overweight or obese based on the criteria (Table 1). In regards to related past medical history 98/208 (47%) patients had history of pelvic surgeries, and 7/208 (3%) of patients were on oral anticoagulants at the time of referral. The average Charlson comorbidity score was 0.12, 95% CI [0.0656, 0.1744] with a median of 0.
Nearly all of the patients, 203/208 (98%) were referred by a gynecologist; in more than half instances 118/203 (58%) they were referred by gynecologists that were experts in management of uterine fibroids. Two out of 208 (1%) were referred by primary care physicians, 1/208 (0.5%) by a surgeon, and 2/208 (1%) were self-referred.
The majority of patients, 144/208 (69%) were referred to IR to consider UAE as an alternative to other treatment options, as presented by the referring physicians, these options included expectant management, medical management, endometrial ablation, laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, and abdominal surgery. 42/208 (20%) patients were referred to IR to undergo UAE: 31/42 (74%) patients were not good surgical candidates, and 11/42 (26%) patients were referred for preoperative embolization prior to hysterectomy or myomectomy. Sufficient data were not available in 22/208 (10%) patients regarding the discussion between referring physician and the patient about the treatment options.
Leading presenting symptom in all patients was menorrhagia, in more than 80% of patients. This was followed by pelvic pain in 43% of the patients with fibroids, 13% (1/8) of patients with adenomyosis, and 58% of the patients with both. The difference between the prevalence of pelvic pain between these three groups was not statistically significance (p = 0.07), likely due to very few number of patients with only adenomyosis. Urinary symptoms, such as frequency, incontinence, and nocturia were the third most common set of symptoms in 42% (88/208) of all patients.
The majority of patients referred to our clinic 159/208 (76%) underwent UAE. Among those who did not undergo UAE, 40/49 (82%) patients were referred for fibroids, 3/49 (6%) patients for adenomyosis, and six patients were presumed to have both pathologies (Table 2 and Fig. 1). In 70/159 (44%) of the patients who underwent UAE a phone consult preceded the procedure to finalize the plan after reviewing the endometrial biopsy and/or pelvic MRI.
189/208 (91%) patients had pelvic MRI with and without contrast prior to the procedure. 114/189 (60%) had an MRI prior to the IR evaluation, and 75/189 (40%) patients underwent MRI after the evaluation. The vast majority (148/189, 80%) of the MRI studies were performed in our facility, and 104/189 (70%) were ordered by an interventional radiologist (Table 3). 19/208 (9%) patients did not undergo MRI, most of them 13/19 (68%) because the patient decided not to proceed with uterine artery embolization (Table 4).
166/208 (80%) patients underwent endometrial biopsy prior to UAE, and 132/166 (80%) patients had the results prior to their IR consultation. Among 42/208 (20%) patients who did not undergo endometrial biopsy, 28/42 (67%) had no/minimal bleeding symptoms and therefore did not require a biopsy based on the ACOG guidelines, and 5/42 (12%) decided not to proceed with UAE (Table 4).
Endometrial biopsy showed benign secretory endometrium with no other pathological abnormality in 160/166 (96%) patients. One patient 1/166 (0.6%) had endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and therefore was referred to gyneco-oncologist for further workup and management. Chronic endometritis was detected by endometrial biopsy in another patient 1/166 (0.6%). This patient underwent a successful UAE. However, to prevent flare of endometritis, she was treated with a prolonged antibiotics regimen prior to and after the procedure. One out of 166 (0.6%) patients had Eosinophilic Endometrial Metaplasia on endometrial biopsy. This finding was further discussed with the pathologist and deemed not to be a premalignant condition. 3/166 (2%) patients had focal endocervical metaplasia, which is a benign condition, and likely due to contamination of endocervical cells on endometrial biopsy. Thus this finding of focal endocervical metaplasia did not change the management of our patients.
Discussion
This study has shown that IR evaluation of women who are referred for uterine artery embolization for uterine fibroids and/or adenomyosis, results in a high rate of proceeding with the procedure while effectively identifying the patients that would benefit from alternative medical or surgical options.
In 2016, Taslakian et al. described a systematic approach for pre-procedural care in vascular and interventional radiology and emphasized the necessity of a multidisciplinary team approach for patient care [15]. Lutjeboer et al. [16] showed that routine implementation of IR clinic improves patient safety and satisfaction. Patient evaluation in IR clinic, as has been shown by our results was highly effective in identifying the appropriate patients for uterine artery embolization, while also referring other patients for more appropriate treatments, such as hysteroscopy for endometrial polyps and intracavitary fibroids, gyneco-oncology for ovarian mass and endometrial neoplasia, and hysterectomy for patients with non-enhancing fibroids. Furthermore, some patients experience significant anxiety from a mere diagnosis of uterine fibroids and thus seek treatment, while they are completely asymptomatic. These patients benefit greatly from the discussion with an interventional radiologist about this entity, the prevalence in the general population, and the timeframe it needs for proper management. Even if these patients do not undergo a uterine artery embolization, the evaluation by an IR team is beneficial for them.
Two women (1%) in our study had malignancy detected during their workup, an ovarian mass on MRI, and one endometrial neoplasia on endometrial biopsy. This number is likely underestimating the prevalence of neoplasms in this population, as some of the evaluation is performed by referring providers, and if they detect any neoplasia, the patient is not going to be referred to IR. Any suspected uterine, cervical, or adnexal malignancy is an absolute contraindication for UAE [17, 18]. Therefore, appropriate workup by an IR team, if not performed earlier, is a must prior to uterine artery embolization, despite a relatively low overall risk of malignancy in this population.
MR imaging is one of the cardinal tools in the pre-UAE evaluation. Several studies emphasized the value of MRI in obtaining vital information about uterine and adnexal anatomy, fibroid enhancement, and also ruling out malignancies or other pathologies such as adenomyosis [3, 19,20,21]. This study confirms the value of pelvic MRI prior to UAE—whether it is to detect adenomyosis, which is treated with smaller particles in our institution, or detection of endometrial polyps that can be managed with hysteroscopy or even non-enhancing fibroids, in which case the patient would not benefit from UAE.
Endometrial biopsy is recommended prior to the UAE in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding [1, 4, 14, 22]. The risk for leiomyosarcoma is low, with reported risk ranging from 1 in 350 to 1 in 8300. However, in more invasive cases, leiomyosarcoma can be diagnosed with an endometrial biopsy, thus acting as an additional failsafe for this rare diagnosis [23,24,25]. There were no cases of leiomyosarcoma in this study cohort, however, endometrial biopsy results changed management in two cases—one patient with endometrial neoplasia and the other with endometritis. Therefore, we concur with the ACOG recommendation of endometrial biopsy for patients with abnormal uterine bleeding prior to the UAE.
There are several limitations to our study. This study cohort is based on the large practice of two interventional radiologists in a tertiary academic institution; therefore, it has only evaluated a particular way of practice. It is possible that in a different setting, the rate of positive findings in pre-procedural evaluation would be different. Furthermore, there is no comparison to similar patients with uterine fibroids and adenomyosis that were not evaluated by an interventional radiologist. Therefore it is possible that the findings could have been detected by referring gynecologists during their workup. We have not performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of our practice this could be evaluated in future studies.
Conclusion
-
(1)
IR clinic evaluation plays an integral role in the management of patients prior to uterine artery embolization.
-
(2)
Pelvic MRI findings altered clinical management of patients prior to uterine artery embolization in 4% of cases due to presence of intracavitary fibroids, endometrial polyps, non-enhancing fibroids, and adnexal mass.
-
(3)
Endometrial biopsy findings changed management in 1% of cases due to presence of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and chronic endometritis.
Abbreviations
- UAE:
-
Uterine arterial embolization
- IR:
-
Interventional radiology
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- EIN:
-
Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia
References
Andrews RT, Spies JB, Sacks D, Worthington-Kirsch RL, Niedzwiecki GA, Marx MV, et al. Patient care and uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2009 Jul;20(7 Suppl):S307-311.
Ghai S, Rajan DK, Benjamin MS, Asch MR, Ghai S. Uterine Artery Embolization for Leiomyomas: Pre- and Postprocedural Evaluation with US. RadioGraphics. 2005 Sep 1;25(5):1159–72.
Jha RC, Takahama J, Imaoka I, Korangy SJ, Spies JB, Cooper C, et al. Adenomyosis: MRI of the Uterus Treated with Uterine Artery Embolization. Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Sep 1;181(3):851–6.
Kohi MP, Spies JB. Updates on Uterine Artery Embolization. Semin Interv Radiol. 2018 Mar;35(1):48–55.
Silberzweig JE, Powell DK, Matsumoto AH, Spies JB. Management of Uterine Fibroids: A Focus on Uterine-sparing Interventional Techniques. Radiology. 2016 Aug 17;280(3):675–92.
Mamlouk MD, Lee PW. Developing a Multidisciplinary Vascular Anomalies Clinic and Reviewing the Radiologist’s Clinic Role. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2018 Nov 1;47(6):378–81.
Siskin GP, Bagla S, Sansivero GE, Mitchell NL. The Interventional Radiology Clinic: Key Ingredients for Success. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004 Jul 1;15(7):681–8.
Siskin GP, Bagla S, Sansivero GE, Mitchell NL. The Interventional Radiology Clinic: What You Need to Know. Semin Interv Radiol. 2005 Mar;22(1):39–44.
Siskin G. Outpatient Care of the Interventional Radiology Patient. Semin Interv Radiol. 2006 Dec;23(4):337–45.
Hovsepian DM, Siskin GP, Bonn J, Cardella JF, Clark TWI, Lampmann LE, et al. Quality Improvement Guidelines for Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Leiomyomata. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004 Aug 1;27(4):307–13.
Abboud SE, Soriano S, Abboud R, Patel I, Davidson J, Azar NR, et al. The Radiologist Is in, but Was it Worth the Wait? Radiology Resident Note Quality in an Outpatient Interventional Radiology Clinic. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017 May 1;46(3):177–80.
Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, Ard JD, Comuzzie AG, Donato KA, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society. Circulation. 2014 Jun 24;129(25 Suppl 2):S102-138.
Quan H, Li B, Couris C, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and Validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Score for Risk Adjustment in Hospital Discharge Abstracts Using Data From 6 Countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15;173(6):676–82.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 557: Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):891–6.
Taslakian B, Sebaaly MG, Al-Kutoubi A. Patient Evaluation and Preparation in Vascular and Interventional Radiology: What Every Interventional Radiologist Should Know (Part 2: Patient Preparation and Medications). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016 Apr 1;39(4):489–99.
Lutjeboer J, Burgmans MC, Chung K, van Erkel AR. Impact on Patient Safety and Satisfaction of Implementation of an Outpatient Clinic in Interventional Radiology (IPSIPOLI-Study): A Quasi-Experimental Prospective Study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015 Jun;38(3):543–51.
Bulman JC, Ascher SM, Spies JB. Current Concepts in Uterine Fibroid Embolization. RadioGraphics. 2012 Oct 1;32(6):1735–50.
Dariushnia SR, Nikolic B, Stokes LS, Spies JB. Quality Improvement Guidelines for Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014 Nov 1;25(11):1737–47.
Duvnjak S, Ravn P, Green A, Andersen PE. Magnetic Resonance Signal Intensity Ratio Measurement Before Uterine Artery Embolization: Ability to Predict Fibroid Size Reduction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 Dec 1;40(12):1839–44.
Williams PL, Coote JM, Watkinson AF. Pre–Uterine Artery Embolization MRI: Beyond Fibroids. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011 Dec 1;34(6):1143–50.
Omary RA, Vasireddy S, Chrisman HB, Ryu RK, Pereles FS, Carr JC, et al. The Effect of Pelvic MR Imaging on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Women with Presumed Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002 Nov 1;13(11):1149–53.
Lefebvre GG, Vilos G, Asch M, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Canadian Association of Radiologists, Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. Uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC J Obstet Gynecol Can JOGC. 2004 Oct;26(10):899–911, 913–28.
Pritts EA. The prevalence of occult leiomyosarcoma in women undergoing presumed fibroid surgery and outcomes after morcellation. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;30(1):81–8.
Cohen SL, Hariton E, Afshar Y, Siedhoff MT. Updates in uterine fibroid tissue extraction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;28(4):277.
Seagle B-LL, Alexander AL, Strohl AE, Shahabi S. Discussing sarcoma risks during informed consent for nonhysterectomy management of fibroids: an unmet need. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan 1;218(1):103.e1-103.e5.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nakhaei, M., Faintuch, S. & Brook, O.R. Impact of evaluation in interventional radiology clinic prior to uterine artery embolization: changes in management. Abdom Radiol 45, 878–884 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02388-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02388-3