Baird D D, Saldana T M, Shore D L, Hill M C, Schectman J M
Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Social & Scientific Systems Inc., Durham, NC 27703, USA.
Hum Reprod. 2015 Dec;30(12):2936-44. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev235. Epub 2015 Sep 25.
How well can a single baseline ultrasound assessment of fibroid burden (presence or absence of fibroids and size of largest, if present) predict future probability of having a major uterine procedure?
During an 8-year follow-up period, the risk of having a major uterine procedure was 2% for those without fibroids and increased with fibroid size for those with fibroids, reaching 47% for those with fibroids ≥ 4 cm in diameter at baseline.
Uterine fibroids are a leading indication for hysterectomy. However, when fibroids are found, there are few available data to help clinicians advise patients about disease progression.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Women who were 35-49 years old were randomly selected from the membership of a large urban health plan; 80% of those determined to be eligible were enrolled and screened with ultrasound for fibroids ≥ 0.5 cm in diameter. African-American and white premenopausal participants who responded to at least one follow-up interview (N = 964, 85% of those eligible) constituted the study cohort. During follow-up (5822 person-years), participants self-reported any major uterine procedure (67% hysterectomies). Life-table analyses and Cox regression (with censoring for menopause) were used to estimate the risk of having a uterine procedure for women with no fibroids, small (<2 cm in diameter), medium (2-3.9 cm), and large fibroids (≥ 4 cm). Differences between African-American and white women, importance of a clinical diagnosis of fibroids prior to study enrollment, and the impact of submucosal fibroids on risk were investigated.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: There was a greater loss to follow-up for African-Americans than whites (19 versus 11%). For those with follow-up data, 64% had fibroids at baseline, 33% of whom had had a prior diagnosis. Of those with fibroids, 27% had small fibroids (<2 cm in diameter), 46% had medium (largest fibroid 2-3.9 cm in diameter), and 27% had large fibroids (largest ≥ 4 cm in diameter). Twenty-one percent had at least one submucosal fibroid.
Major uterine procedures were reported by 115 women during follow-up. The estimated risk of having a procedure in any given year of follow-up for those with fibroids compared with those without fibroids increased markedly with fibroid-size category (from 4-fold, confidence interval (CI) (1.4-11.1) for the small fibroids to 10-fold, CI (4.4-24.8) for the medium fibroids, to 27-fold, CI (11.5-65.2) for the large fibroids). This influence of fibroid size on risk did not differ between African-Americans and whites (P-value for interaction = 0.88). Once fibroid size at enrollment was accounted for, having a prior diagnosis at the time of ultrasound screening was not predictive of having a procedure. Exclusion of women with a submucosal fibroid had little influence on the results. The 8-year risk of a procedure based on lifetable analyses was 2% for women with no fibroids, 8, 23, and 47%, respectively, for women who had small, medium or large fibroids at enrollment. Given the strong association of fibroid size with subsequent risk of a procedure, these findings are unlikely to be due to chance.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a large sample size, the number of women having procedures during follow-up was relatively small. Thus, covariates such as BMI, which were not important in our analyses, may have associations that were too small to detect with our sample size. Another limitation is that the medical procedures were self-reported. However, we attempted to retrieve medical records when participants agreed, and 77% of the total procedures reported were verified. Our findings are likely to be generalizable to other African-American and white premenopausal women in their late 30s and 40s, but other ethnic groups have not been studied.
Though further studies are needed to confirm and extend the results, our findings provide an initial estimate of disease progression that will be helpful to clinicians and their patients.
子宫肌瘤负荷的单次基线超声评估(有无肌瘤以及若有肌瘤,最大肌瘤的大小)对未来进行子宫大手术的可能性预测效果如何?
在8年的随访期内,无肌瘤者进行子宫大手术的风险为2%,有肌瘤者的风险随肌瘤大小增加,基线时直径≥4cm的肌瘤患者风险达到47%。
子宫肌瘤是子宫切除术的主要指征。然而,发现肌瘤时,几乎没有可用数据帮助临床医生向患者提供疾病进展方面的建议。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:从一个大型城市健康计划的成员中随机选取35 - 49岁的女性;确定符合条件的女性中80%入组,并用超声筛查直径≥0.5cm的肌瘤。对至少接受过一次随访访谈的非裔美国人和白人绝经前参与者(N = 964,占符合条件者的85%)构成研究队列。在随访期间(5822人年),参与者自行报告任何子宫大手术(67%为子宫切除术)。采用生命表分析和Cox回归(对绝经进行删失处理)来估计无肌瘤、小肌瘤(直径<2cm)、中等肌瘤(2 - 3.9cm)和大肌瘤(≥4cm)女性进行子宫手术的风险。研究了非裔美国人和白人女性之间的差异、研究入组前肌瘤临床诊断的重要性以及黏膜下肌瘤对风险的影响。
参与者/材料、设置、方法:非裔美国人的失访率高于白人(分别为19%和11%)。对于有随访数据的人,64%在基线时有肌瘤,其中33%之前已被诊断出。在有肌瘤的人中,27%有小肌瘤(直径<2cm),46%有中等肌瘤(最大肌瘤直径2 - 3.9cm),27%有大肌瘤(最大直径≥4cm)。21%至少有一个黏膜下肌瘤。
随访期间有115名女性报告进行了子宫大手术。与无肌瘤者相比,有肌瘤者在随访任何一年进行手术的估计风险随肌瘤大小类别显著增加(小肌瘤为4倍,置信区间(CI)(1.4 - 11.1);中等肌瘤为10倍,CI(4.4 - 24.8);大肌瘤为27倍,CI(11.5 - 65.2))。肌瘤大小对风险的这种影响在非裔美国人和白人之间无差异(交互作用P值 = 0.88)。一旦考虑入组时的肌瘤大小,超声筛查时的既往诊断并不能预测是否会进行手术。排除有黏膜下肌瘤的女性对结果影响不大。基于生命表分析,无肌瘤女性8年手术风险为2%,入组时患有小、中、大肌瘤的女性风险分别为8%、23%和47%。鉴于肌瘤大小与后续手术风险的强关联,这些发现不太可能是偶然的。
局限性、谨慎理由:尽管样本量较大,但随访期间进行手术的女性数量相对较少。因此,诸如BMI等在我们分析中不重要的协变量可能存在关联,但因样本量太小而无法检测到。另一个局限性是医疗手术是自行报告的。然而,当参与者同意时我们试图检索医疗记录,报告的总手术中有77%得到了核实。我们的发现可能适用于其他30多岁和40多岁的非裔美国人和白人绝经前女性,但尚未研究其他种族群体。
尽管需要进一步研究来证实和扩展结果,但我们的发现提供了疾病进展的初步估计,这将有助于临床医生及其患者。