The effect of treatment preference and treatment allocation on patients' health-related quality of life in the randomized EMMY trial

Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Adenomyosis: Proceedings from a Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Research Consensus Panel

Adenomyosis poses an important diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in women's health because of a variety of clinical/imaging presentations and frequent coexistence with other benign gynecologic conditions. In recent years, uterine artery embolization (UAE) for the treatment of adenomyosis has shown encouraging and favorable outcomes and long-term symptom improvement. To expand the current understanding of adenomyosis pathophysiology, imaging diagnostic criteria, and treatment outcomes, the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation gathered a multidisciplinary Research Consensus Panel with experts from diverse backgrounds. The topics addressed were centered around the following: (i) the clinical presentation and imaging findings to diagnose adenomyosis; (ii) the currently available medical, interventional, and surgical treatment options; and (iii) existing literature for and experiences with UAE in symptomatic disease. The panel acknowledged that before the pursuit of a clinical trial, it would be necessary to first evaluate the imaging criteria for adenomyosis and correlate them with pathology and symptoms to establish a noninvasive imaging classification system. Second priority was given to the development of a quality of life questionnaire to assess patient outcomes following treatment. The third priority was the performance of a prospective clinical trial comparing UAE with medical therapy, which would help establish UAE in the treatment algorithm and societal guidelines for symptomatic adenomyosis.

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.

RESULTS

In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019094438.

Uterine Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Adenomyosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The effect of uterine artery embolization (UAE) on symptomatic adenomyosis was evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Four groups were evaluated: short-term (< 12 months) pure adenomyosis, short-term adenomyosis with fibroids (combined adenomyosis), long-term (> 12 months) pure adenomyosis, and long-term combined adenomyosis. Improvement of symptoms occurred in 83.1% (872/1,049) of patients. Reported symptom reduction was 4.8% greater in the short-term combined group (P = .169) and 11.4% greater in the long-term combined group (P = .003). Uterine volume was reduced in all patients at 3 months. The effects of UAE on symptom improvement and uterine volume reduction in patients with adenomyosis are encouraging.

Uterine artery embolization vs hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: 10-year outcomes from the randomized EMMY trial

BACKGROUND

Since 1995 uterine artery embolization has been described as an alternative for hysterectomy in patients with symptomatic fibroids. Many studies including several randomized controlled trials established uterine artery embolization as a valuable treatment. These randomized controlled trials reported outcomes in terms of health-related quality of life, clinical outcomes, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness after 1, 2, and 5 years of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcome and health-related quality of life 10 years after uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding caused by uterine fibroids in a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN

In all, 28 Dutch hospitals recruited patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids who were eligible for hysterectomy. Patients were 1:1 randomly assigned to uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy. The outcomes assessed at 10 years postintervention were reintervention rates, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction, which were obtained through validated questionnaires. Study outcomes were analyzed according to original treatment assignment (intention to treat).

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients were randomized from 2002 through 2004. Eventually 81 uterine artery embolization and 75 hysterectomy patients underwent the allocated treatment shortly after randomization. The remaining patients withdrew from the trial. The 10-year questionnaire was mailed when the last included patient had been treated 10 years earlier. The mean duration of follow-up was 133 months (SD 8.58) accompanied by a mean age of 57 years (SD 4.53). Questionnaires were received from 131 of 156 patients (84%). Ten years after treatment, 5 patients underwent secondary hysterectomy resulting in a total of 28 of 81 (35%) (24/77 [31%] after successful uterine artery embolization). Secondary hysterectomies were performed for persisting symptoms in all cases but 1 (for prolapse). After the initial treatment health-related quality of life improved significantly. After 10 years, generic health-related quality of life remained stable, without differences between both groups. The urogenital distress inventory and the defecation distress inventory showed a decrease in both groups, probably related to increasing age, without significant differences between study arms. Satisfaction in both groups remained comparable. The majority of patients declared being (very) satisfied about the received treatment: 78% of the uterine artery embolization group vs 87% in the hysterectomy group.

CONCLUSION

In about two thirds of uterine artery embolization-treated patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids a hysterectomy can be avoided. Health-related quality of life 10 years after uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy remained comparably stable. Uterine artery embolization is a well-documented and less invasive alternative to hysterectomy for symptomatic uterine fibroids on which eligible patients should be counseled.

The conservative and interventional treatment of fibroids

BACKGROUND

Fibroids are the most common benign tumors in women. One-third of all women of reproductive age undergo treatment for symptomatic fibroids. In recent years, the spectrum of available treatments has been widened by the introduction of new drugs and interventional procedures.

METHODS

Selective literature review on the treatment of uterine fibroids, including consideration of several Cochrane Reviews.

RESULTS

Fibroids can be treated with drugs, interventional procedures (uterine artery embolization [UAE] and focused ultrasound treatment [FUS]), and surgery. The evidence regarding the various available treatments is mixed. All methods improve symptoms, but only a few comparative studies have been performed. A meta-analysis revealed that recovery within 15 days is more common after laparoscopic enucleation than after open surgery (odds ratio [OR], 3.2). A minimally invasive hysterectomy, or one performed by the vaginal route, is associated with a shorter hospital stay and a more rapid recovery than open transabdominal hysterectomy. UAE is an alternative to hysterectomy for selected patients. The re-intervention rates after fibroid enucleation, hysterectomy, and UAE are 8.9-9%, 1.8-10.7%, and 7-34.6%, respectively. The main drugs used to treat fibroids are gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs and selective progesterone receptor modulators.

CONCLUSION

Multiple treatment options are available and enable individualized therapy for symptomatic fibroids. The most important considerations in the choice of treatment are the question of family planning and, in some cases, the technical limitations of the treatments themselves.