Review Article

Extracorporeal Ultrasound-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound: Implications from the Present Clinical Trials

Table 2

The efficacy of HIFU in controlled trials.

Disease and treatment (number of cases)Response Reference

Uterine fibroid
 HIFU (72)
 Myomectomy (74)
87.5% versus 94.6% (P = 0.1282)[10]
 HIFU (49)
 Mifepristone (53)
Tumor shrinkage
95.9% versus 90.6% (P = 0.2770)
Symptom relief
93.9% versus 96.2% (P = 0.5824)
[11]
 Mifepristone (20)
 HIFU (20)
 HIFU + mifepristone (20)
85.0% versus 90.0% versus 95.0% (P = 0.5606)[12]

Ectopic pregnancy
 HIFU (20)
 Mifepristone + methotrexate (20)
80.0% versus 85.0% (P = 0.6769)
[13]

Chyluria
 HIFU (25)
 Lymphatic disconnection (30)
84.0% versus 83.3% (P = 0.9469)
Relapse
14.3% versus 16.0% (P = 0.8717)
[14]

Liver cancer
 HIFU (20)
 Radio frequency (20)
3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month survival
80.0%, 61.1%, 42.9%, and 33.3% versus
85.0%, 58.8%, 46.7%, and 36.4%
(P = 0.6769, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00)
[15]
 HIFU (30)
 TACE (30)
0.5-, 1-, and 2-year survival
83.3%, 63.3%, and 40.0% versus
66.7%, 43.3%, and 23.3%
(P = 0.1331, 0.1192, 0.1634)
[16]
 HIFU (40)
γ-knife (38)
Early response
20.0% versus 39.5% (P = 0.0580)
PVTT
52.5% versus 47.4% (P = 0.6504)
MST
10 versus 11 months* (NS)
[17]

Pancreas cancer
 HIFU (20)
 Chemotherapy (20)
Early response
50.0% versus 30.0% (P = 0.1949)
6-month survival
70.0% versus 50.0% (P = 0.1949)
[18]
 HIFU + 3DCRT (22)
 3DCRT (29)
 HIFU (22)
Early response
63.6% versus 44.8% versus 40.9% (P = 0.2611)
0.5-, 1-, and 2-year survival
95.5%, 59.1%, and 50.0% versus
93.1%, 41.4%, and 24.1% versus
95.5%, 40.9%, and 22.7%
(P = 0.9127, 0.3704, 0.0891)
MST
17.6 versus 12.4 versus 12.3 months
[19]

Prostate cancer
 HIFU + emasculation (21)
 Emasculation (19)
5-year survival
83.3% versus 66.7% (P = 0.4430)
Bone metastasis
27.8% versus 50.0% (P = 0.3053)
[20]

PVTT: portal vein tumor thrombosis; MST: median survival time.
*The raw data were not described.