Purpose The aim of this study was to determine whether a self-referred population screened by an interventional radiology (IR) clinic and a non-IR, physician-referred population differed with regard to suitability for uterine artery embolization (UAE) for symptomatic leiomyomas on the basis of preprocedure MRI. Methods This was an institutional review board–approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study of 301 women evaluated in an IR clinic for possible UAE from January 2009 to September 2012. Subjects were retrospectively divided into two groups: self-referred via direct marketing (group A, n = 203; mean age, 41.8 years; range, 22-58 years) and physician referred (group B, n = 98; mean age, 42.9 years; range, 30-65 years). Results There was no significant difference between groups in presenting symptoms (multiple symptoms, bleeding, bulk-related symptoms, pain). After initial screening, 73.4% of group A (149 of 203) and 79.6% of group B (78 of 98) underwent MRI (P = .242). On the basis of MRI findings, 91.3% of group A (136 of 149) and 94.9% of group B (74 of 78) had uterine leiomyomas (P = .328). Adenomyosis without leiomyoma was present in 4.0% of group A (6 of 149) and 3.8% of group B (3 of 78) (P = .947). Incidental findings requiring further clinical or imaging evaluation were found in 20.8% of group A (31 of 149) and 24.4% of group B (19 of 78) (P = .539). After MRI, 41.6% of group A (62 of 149) and 48.7% of group B (38 of 78) proceeded to UAE (P = .306). Conclusions After initial screening, similar proportions of self-referred and physician-referred patients were candidates for UAE. The rates of confirmed leiomyomas and incidental findings on MRI were similar between groups.
- fibroid embolization
- uterine artery embolization
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging