|
1
|
Young SW, Jha P, Chamié L, Rodgers S, Kho RM, Horrow MM, Glanc P, Feldman M, Groszmann Y, Khan Z, Young SL, Poder L, Burnett TL, Hu EM, Egan S, VanBuren W. Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus on Routine Pelvic US for Endometriosis. Radiology 2024; 311:e232191. [PMID: 38591980 PMCID: PMC11070694 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.232191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2023] [Revised: 11/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/22/2023] [Indexed: 04/10/2024]
Abstract
Endometriosis is a prevalent and potentially debilitating condition that mostly affects individuals of reproductive age, and often has a substantial diagnostic delay. US is usually the first-line imaging modality used when patients report chronic pelvic pain or have issues of infertility, both common symptoms of endometriosis. Other than the visualization of an endometrioma, sonologists frequently do not appreciate endometriosis on routine transvaginal US images. Given a substantial body of literature describing techniques to depict endometriosis at US, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to make recommendations aimed at improving the screening process for endometriosis. The panel was composed of experts in the imaging and management of endometriosis, including radiologists, sonographers, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons. A comprehensive literature review combined with a modified Delphi technique achieved a consensus. This statement defines the targeted screening population, describes techniques for augmenting pelvic US, establishes direct and indirect observations for endometriosis at US, creates an observational grading and reporting system, and makes recommendations for additional imaging and patient management. The panel recommends transvaginal US of the posterior compartment, observation of the relative positioning of the uterus and ovaries, and the uterine sliding sign maneuver to improve the detection of endometriosis. These additional techniques can be performed in 5 minutes or less and could ultimately decrease the delay of an endometriosis diagnosis in at-risk patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Luciana Chamié
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Shuchi Rodgers
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Rosanne M. Kho
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Mindy M. Horrow
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Phyllis Glanc
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Myra Feldman
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Yvette Groszmann
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Zaraq Khan
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Steven L. Young
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Liina Poder
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Tatnai L. Burnett
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Eric M. Hu
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Susan Egan
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| | - Wendaline VanBuren
- From the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo
Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 (S.W.Y.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology,
Chamié Imagem da Mulher, São Paulo, Brazil (L.C.); Department of
Radiology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (S.R., M.M.H.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Ariz
(R.M.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(P.G.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (M.F.);
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,
Boston, Mass (Y.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Z.K., T.L.B.) and
Department of Radiology (W.V.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
(S.L.Y.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.P.); Department of Radiology,
Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.M.H.); and Department of
Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ
(S.E.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Dason ES, Maxim M, Sanders A, Papillon-Smith J, Ng D, Chan C, Sobel M. Directive clinique n o 437 : Diagnostic et prise en charge de l'adénomyose. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA 2023; 45:430-444.e1. [PMID: 37244747 DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.04.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIF Décrire les pratiques actuelles fondées sur des données probantes pour le diagnostic et la prise en charge de l'adénomyose. POPULATION CIBLE Toutes les patientes en âge de procréer qui ont un utérus. OPTIONS Les options diagnostiques sont l'échographie endovaginale et l'imagerie par résonance magnétique. Les options thérapeutiques doivent être adaptées aux symptômes (saignements menstruels abondants, douleur et/ou infertilité) et comprendre des options médicamenteuses (anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens, acide tranexamique, contraceptifs oraux combinés, système intra-utérin à libération de lévonorgestrel, diénogest, autres progestatifs, analogues de la gonadotrophine), des options interventionnelles (embolisation de l'artère utérine) et des options chirurgicales (ablation de l'endomètre, excision de l'adénomyose, hystérectomie). RéSULTATS: Les critères de jugement sont la réduction des saignements menstruels abondants, l'atténuation de la douleur pelvienne (dysménorrhée, dyspareunie, douleur pelvienne chronique) et l'amélioration du devenir reproductif (fertilité, avortement spontané, issues de grossesse défavorables). BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: Par la présentation des méthodes de diagnostic et des options de prise en charge, cette directive sera bénéfique pour les patientes qui expriment des plaintes de nature gynécologique potentiellement causées par l'adénomyose, en particulier celles qui souhaitent préserver leur fertilité. La directive sera également utile aux praticiens qui pourront améliorer leurs connaissances sur les différentes options. DONNéES PROBANTES: Des recherches ont été effectuées dans les bases de données MEDLINE Reviews, MEDLINE ALL, Cochrane, PubMed et Embase. La recherche initiale a été réalisée en 2021 et mise à jour avec les articles pertinents en 2022. Les termes de recherche utilisés sont les suivants : adenomyosis, adenomyoses, endometritis (utilisés ou indexés sous adenomyosis avant 2012), (endometrium AND myometrium) uterine adenomyosis/es, symptom/s/matic adenomyosis ET [diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, guideline, outcome, management, imaging, sonography, pathogenesis, fertility, infertility, therapy, histology, ultrasound, review, meta-analysis, evaluation]. Les articles retenus sont des essais cliniques randomisés, des méta-analyses, des revues systématiques, des études observationnelles et des études de cas. Des articles dans toutes les langues ont été répertoriés et examinés. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteurs ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant le cadre méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (Tableau A1 pour les définitions et Tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et conditionnelles [faibles]). PROFESSIONNELS CONCERNéS: Obstétriciens-gynécologues, radiologistes, médecins de famille, urgentologues, sages-femmes, infirmières autorisées, infirmières praticiennes, étudiants en médecine, résidents et moniteurs cliniques (fellows). RéSUMé POUR TWITTER: L'adénomyose est fréquemment observée chez les femmes en âge de procréer. Il existe des options de diagnostic et de prise en charge qui préservent la fertilité. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: RECOMMANDATIONS.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Dason ES, Maxim M, Sanders A, Papillon-Smith J, Ng D, Chan C, Sobel M. Guideline No. 437: Diagnosis and Management of Adenomyosis. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA 2023; 45:417-429.e1. [PMID: 37244746 DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the current evidence-based diagnosis and management of adenomyosis. TARGET POPULATION All patients with a uterus of reproductive age. OPTIONS Diagnostic options include transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment options should be tailored to symptoms (heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, and/or infertility) and include medical options (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tranexamic acid, combined oral contraceptives, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, dienogest, other progestins, gonadotropin-releasing analogues), interventional options (uterine artery embolization), and surgical options (endometrial ablation, excision of adenomyosis, hysterectomy). OUTCOMES Outcomes of interest include reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding, reduction in pelvic pain (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain), and improvement in reproductive outcomes (fertility, miscarriage, adverse pregnancy outcomes). BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS This guideline will benefit patients with gynaecological complaints that may be caused by adenomyosis, especially those patients who wish to preserve their fertility, by presenting diagnostic methods and management options. It will also benefit practitioners by improving their knowledge of various options. EVIDENCE Databases searched were MEDLINE Reviews, MEDLINE ALL, Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE. The initial search was completed in 2021 and updated with relevant articles in 2022. Search terms included adenomyosis, adenomyoses, endometritis (used/indexed as adenomyosis before 2012), (endometrium AND myometrium) uterine adenomyosis/es, symptom/s/matic adenomyosis] AND [diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, guideline, outcome, management, imaging, sonography, pathogenesis, fertility, infertility, therapy, histology, ultrasound, review, meta-analysis, evaluation]. Articles included randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, observational studies, and case reports. Articles in all languages were searched and reviewed. VALIDATION METHODS The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Table A1 for definitions and Table A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE Obstetrician-gynaecologists, radiologists, family physicians, emergency physicians, midwives, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, and fellows. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT Adenomyosis is common in reproductive-aged women. There are diagnostic and management options that preserve fertility available. SUMMARY STATEMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS.
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Han B, Liang T, Zhang W, Ma C, Qiao J. The effect of adenomyosis types on clinical outcomes of IVF embryo transfer after ultra-long GnRH agonist protocol. Reprod Biomed Online 2023; 46:346-351. [PMID: 36549997 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.09.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2022] [Revised: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION What is the effect of adenomyosis types on IVF and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) after ultra-long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol? DESIGN Patients who underwent the first cycle of IVF-ET with ultra-long GnRH agonist protocol were included in this retrospective cohort study. They were divided into three groups: (A) 428 patients with diffuse adenomyosis; (B) 718 patients with focal adenomyosis; and (C) 519 patients with tubal infertility. Reproduction outcomes were analysed. RESULTS Logistic regression analysis revealed that, compared with focal adenomyosis and tubal infertility, diffuse adenomyosis was negatively associated with clinical pregnancy and live birth (clinical pregnancy: A versus B: OR 0.708, 95% CI 0.539 to 0.931, P = 0.013; A versus C: OR 0.663, 95% CI 0.489 to 0.899, P = 0.008; live birth: A versus B: OR 0.530, 95% CI 0.385 to 0.730, P < 0.001; A versus C: OR 0.441, 95% CI 0.313 to 0.623, P < 0.001), but positively associated with miscarriage (A versus B: OR 1.727, 95% CI 1.056 to 2.825, P = 0.029; A versus C: OR 2.549, 95% CI 1.278 to 5.082, P = 0.008). Compared with patients with tubal infertility, focal adenomyosis was also a risk factor for miscarriage (B versus C: OR 1.825, 95% CI 1.112 to 2.995, P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS Compared with patients with focal adenomyosis or tubal infertility, the reproduction outcomes of IVF-ET in patients with diffuse adenomyosis seems to be worse.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bing Han
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital Beijing 100000, China; National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology (Peking University Third Hospital) Beijing 100000, China; Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Ministry of Education (Peking University) Beijing 100000, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology Beijing 100000, China
| | - Tingting Liang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan City 030000, China
| | - Wen Zhang
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital Beijing 100000, China; National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology (Peking University Third Hospital) Beijing 100000, China; Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Ministry of Education (Peking University) Beijing 100000, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology Beijing 100000, China
| | - Caihong Ma
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital Beijing 100000, China; National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology (Peking University Third Hospital) Beijing 100000, China; Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Ministry of Education (Peking University) Beijing 100000, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology Beijing 100000, China.
| | - Jie Qiao
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital Beijing 100000, China; National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology (Peking University Third Hospital) Beijing 100000, China; Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Ministry of Education (Peking University) Beijing 100000, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology Beijing 100000, China; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan City 030000, China; Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Genomics Beijing 100000, China; Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Science Beijing 100000, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Raimondo D, Raffone A, Aru AC, Giorgi M, Giaquinto I, Spagnolo E, Travaglino A, Galatolo FA, Cimino MGCA, Lenzi J, Centini G, Lazzeri L, Mollo A, Seracchioli R, Casadio P. Application of Deep Learning Model in the Sonographic Diagnosis of Uterine Adenomyosis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2023; 20:ijerph20031724. [PMID: 36767092 PMCID: PMC9914280 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20031724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Revised: 01/14/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Deep Learning (DL) machine for the detection of adenomyosis on uterine ultrasonographic images and compare it to intermediate ultrasound skilled trainees. METHODS Prospective observational study were conducted between 1 and 30 April 2022. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) diagnosis of adenomyosis was investigated by an experienced sonographer on 100 fertile-age patients. Videoclips of the uterine corpus were recorded and sequential ultrasound images were extracted. Intermediate ultrasound-skilled trainees and DL machine were asked to make a diagnosis reviewing uterine images. We evaluated and compared the accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, F1-score, specificity and negative predictive value of the DL model and the trainees for adenomyosis diagnosis. RESULTS Accuracy of DL and intermediate ultrasound-skilled trainees for the diagnosis of adenomyosis were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48-0.54) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.79), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and F1-score of DL were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.38-0.48), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85) and 0.46 (0.42-0.50), respectively, whereas intermediate ultrasound-skilled trainees had sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.52-0.86), specificity of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.58-0.79) and F1-score of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43-0.66). CONCLUSIONS In this preliminary study DL model showed a lower accuracy but a higher specificity in diagnosing adenomyosis on ultrasonographic images compared to intermediate-skilled trainees.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Raimondo
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
| | - Antonio Raffone
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
| | - Anna Chiara Aru
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
| | - Matteo Giorgi
- Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Ilaria Giaquinto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morgagni–Pierantoni Hospital, 47100 Forlì, Italy
| | - Emanuela Spagnolo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Paseo de la Castellana, 28046 Madrid, Spain
| | - Antonio Travaglino
- Pathology Unit, Department of Woman and Child’s Health and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
- Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, 80138 Naples, Italy
| | | | | | - Jacopo Lenzi
- Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
| | - Gabriele Centini
- Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Lucia Lazzeri
- Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Antonio Mollo
- Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry “Schola Medica Salernitana”, University of Salerno, 84084 Baronissi, Italy
| | - Renato Seracchioli
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
| | - Paolo Casadio
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Ates S, Aydın S, Ozcan P. Cardiometabolic profiles in women with adenomyosis. J OBSTET GYNAECOL 2022; 42:3080-3085. [PMID: 35866244 DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2099256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the reproductive profiles, metabolic parameters and cardiometabolic risk assessed by surrogate indexes in women with adenomyosis. Ninety-six premenopausal women who were diagnosed with adenomyosis by transvaginal ultrasound and 97 age-body mass index (BMI) matched controls with normal ultrasound during routine examination were included. Women with adenomyosis were more likely to have higher gravidity and had more abortions than women without adenomyosis. Regarding the individual metabolic syndrome components, the adenomyosis group was more likely to have higher prevalence of hypertension, low HDL-C and central obesity. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of visceral adiposity index, lipid accumulation product and fatty liver index. Only higher blood pressure (BP) remained statistically significant after adjustment for confounding factors in multivariate analysis. Women with adenomyosis had remarkably high risk of hypertension. It may be advisable to monitor their BP closely.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? The only anthropometric characteristic assessed in women in relation to adenomyosis is body mass index (BMI). A case-control study showed that women who are obese are more likely to have adenomyosis. The gravidity, number of spontaneous abortions and previous uterine surgeries such as dilatation and curettage (D&C) and caesarean section were found significantly associated with adenomyosis.What do the results of this study add? A remarkable finding of our study was the increased incidence of higher systolic BP in women with adenomyosis. No difference was observed in adiposity indices between women with and without adenomyosis. Higher prevalence of central obesity and lower HDL-C levels were seen in women with adenomyosis.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The study identifies that adenomyosis is associated with an increased risk of hypertension, and women with adenomyosis may be monitored closely for blood pressure changes. Our report also provides novel information about the metabolic risk profiles associated with adenomyosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seda Ates
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Serdar Aydın
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Pinar Ozcan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Raimondo D, Lazzeri L, Raffone A, Giorgi M, Orsini B, Verrelli L, Lenzi J, Travaglino A, De Meis L, Mollo A, Zupi E, Seracchioli R, Casadio P. Sonographic Assessment of Uterine Biometry for the Diagnosis of Diffuse Adenomyosis in a Tertiary Outpatient Clinic. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12101572. [PMID: 36294711 PMCID: PMC9604640 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12101572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2022] [Revised: 09/11/2022] [Accepted: 09/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: to compare several uterine biometric parameters at transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) between adenomyosis and non-adenomyosis uteri and evaluate their role for the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Methods: prospective observational study conducted between the 1 February 2022 and the 30 April 2022. In this case, 56 patients with TVUS diagnosis of adenomyosis were included. A 1:1 ratio age and parity-matched group of non-adenomyosis patients was selected. We compared sonographic uterine biometric parameters (longitudinal (LD), anteroposterior (APD) and transverse (TD) diameters, volume, simple and complex diameter ratios) and investigated their diagnostic performance. Results: all sonographic parameters were significantly different between the study groups, except for TD/(LD+APD). Optimal cut-off values of APD and LD/APD showed the best sensitivity and specificity. APD diameter equal or superior to 39.5 mm (95% CI, 36.2–42.8) had sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57–0.80), specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59–0.82) and accuracy of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66–0.84). LD/APD equal or inferior to 2.05 (95% CI, 1.96–2.13) showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57–0.80) each and accuracy of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62–0.81). Conclusions: several biometric uterine parameters at TVUS in fertile-aged women were statistically different between adenomyosis and non-adenomyosis uteri, though their optimal cut-off values showed low accuracy in diagnosing adenomyosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Raimondo
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Lucia Lazzeri
- Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Antonio Raffone
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
- Correspondence: or
| | - Matteo Giorgi
- Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Benedetta Orsini
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Ludovica Verrelli
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Jacopo Lenzi
- Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Antonio Travaglino
- Gynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman and Child’s Health Sciences and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80138 Naples, Italy
| | - Lucia De Meis
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Antonio Mollo
- Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry “Schola Medica Salernitana”, University of Salerno, 84084 Baronissi, Italy
| | - Errico Zupi
- Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Renato Seracchioli
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Paolo Casadio
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Adenomyosis and fertility: does adenomyosis impact fertility and does treatment improve outcomes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2022; 34:227-236. [PMID: 35895965 DOI: 10.1097/gco.0000000000000789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Adenomyosis has recently been associated with infertility. Relief of bleeding and pain has been demonstrated with medical and surgical therapy. Less is known about reproductive outcomes after treatment. RECENT FINDINGS Imaging findings during infertility evaluation can be suggestive of adenomyosis without pathologic evaluation. Among women with infertility undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART), adenomyosis is associated with lower live birth rates and clinical pregnancy rates. Treatment with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) modulators prior to frozen embryo transfer may increase the live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate among women with adenomyosis. Pregnancy has been documented following image-guided adenomyosis ablation; however, the reproductive impact is not well established. Pregnancy following excisional procedures appears to be well tolerated, although may carry a higher risk of uterine rupture compared with pregnancy following myomectomy. It is not clear if ablative therapy or resection increases pregnancy rates. SUMMARY Adenomyosis is associated with lower embryo implantation rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. Adenomyotic changes in the uterus can be seen by ultrasound and MRI. GnRH modulators may be useful for women with adenomyosis undergoing ART. Additional prospective data is warranted to determine the optimal medical or surgical therapy for women with adenomyosis desiring conception.Video abstract Supplementary digital content, http://links.lww.com/COOG/A78.
Collapse
|
|
9
|
The Influence of Intraoperative Ultrasound Monitoring on the Risk of Recurrence and Reoperation in Patients with Hysteromyomectomy. CONTRAST MEDIA & MOLECULAR IMAGING 2022; 2022:4366840. [PMID: 35800231 PMCID: PMC9203201 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4366840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Revised: 05/19/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
In recent years, with the continuous development and application of minimally invasive methods in China, laparoscopic myomectomy has become the primary method for clinical treatment of uterine fibroids. There is also a high risk of recurrence and reoperation after endoscopic myomectomy. Intraoperative use of ultrasound for auxiliary examination can provide medical staff with spatial information and position information of fibroids and help medical staff to accurately locate the surgical incision. The aim is to investigate the effect of intraoperative ultrasound monitoring on the risk of postoperative recurrence and reoperation in patients undergoing myomectomy. This study retrospectively collected 80 patients who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy in the gynecology department of our hospital from January 2020 to January 2022. According to the different treatment methods, they were divided into a study group and a control group (both n = 40). The control group underwent preoperative ultrasonography and then underwent myomectomy, while the study group underwent both preoperative and intraoperative ultrasonography before undergoing hysterectomy. Myomectomy: all the enrolled patients were followed up by ultrasound after surgery and followed up for 1 year (recheck ultrasound every 3 months). The indicators, postoperative complications, postoperative average diameter of uterine fibroids, postoperative residual rate of uterine fibroids, postoperative recurrence, and reoperation were compared between the two groups. Intraoperative ultrasound monitoring has a significant effect on patients undergoing myomectomy, which can effectively reduce the residual rate of fibroids, completely remove small and deep fibroids, and reduce complications, postoperative recurrence, and reoperation risks. It has good clinical application value.
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Adenomyosis is an independent risk factor for complications in deep endometriosis laparoscopic surgery. Sci Rep 2022; 12:7086. [PMID: 35490172 PMCID: PMC9056502 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11179-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Accepted: 03/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Deep endometriosis (DE) occurs in 15-30% of patients with endometriosis and is associated with concomitant adenomyosis in around 25-49% of cases. There are no data about the effect of the presence of adenomyosis in terms of surgical outcomes and complications. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of adenomyosis on surgical complications in women with deep endometriosis undergoing laparoscopic surgery. A retrospective cohort study including women referred to the endometriosis unit of a referral teaching hospital. Two expert sonographers preoperatively diagnosed DE and adenomyosis. DE was defined according to the criteria of the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group. Adenomyosis was considered when 3 or more ultrasound criteria of the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment group were present. Demographical variables, current medical treatment, symptoms, DE location, surgical time, hospital stay and difference in pre and post hemoglobin levels were collected. The Clavien-Dindo classification was used to assess surgical complications, and multivariate analysis was performed to compare patients with and without adenomyosis. 157 DE patients were included into the study; 77 (49.05%) had adenomyosis according to transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and were classified in the A group, and 80 (50.95%) had no adenomyosis and were classified in the noA group. Adenomyosis was associated with a higher rate of surgical complications: 33.76% (A group) vs. 12.50% (noA group) (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed a 4.56-fold increased risk of presenting complications in women with adenomyosis (CI 1.90-11.30; p = 0.001) independently of undergoing hysterectomy. There was a statistically significant association between the number of criteria of adenomyosis present in each patient and the proportion of patients presenting surgical complications (p < 0.001). Adenomyosis is an independent preoperative risk factor for surgical complications in DE surgery after adjustment for known demographic, clinical and surgical risk factors.
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Miyagawa C, Murakami K, Tobiume T, Nonogaki T, Matsumura N. Characterization of patients that can continue conservative treatment for adenomyosis. BMC Womens Health 2021; 21:431. [PMID: 34961515 PMCID: PMC8714452 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01577-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Historically, hysterectomy has been the radical treatment for adenomyosis. Although, some patients may not want to have their uterus removed, patients often have to no choice but to request hysterectomy during conservative treatment. The factors necessitating these hysterectomies remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine which patients can continue conservative treatment for adenomyosis. Methods We selected women diagnosed with adenomyosis and provided with conservative treatment at the Kindai University Hospital and Osaka Red Cross Hospital in Osaka Japan from 2008 to 2017. Age at diagnosis, parity, uterine size, subtype of adenomyosis, type of conservative treatment, and timing of hysterectomy for cases with difficulty continuing conservative treatment were examined retrospectively. Results A total of 885 patients were diagnosed with adenomyosis, and 124 started conservative treatment. Conservative treatment was continued in 96 patients (77.4%) and hysterectomy was required in 28 patients (22.6%). The cumulative hysterectomy rate was 32.4%, and all women had hysterectomy within 63 months. In the classification tree, 82% (23/28) of women aged 46 years or younger were able to continue conservative treatment when parity was zero or one. In those with parity two and over, 95% (20/21) of those aged 39 years and older had hysterectomy. Conclusions Patients who continue conservative treatment for approximately 5 years are more likely to have successful preservation of the uterus. Multiparity and higher age at diagnosis are factors that contribute to hysterectomy after conservative treatment. Parity and age at diagnosis may be stratifying factors in future clinical trials of hormone therapy.
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Ambrosio M, Casadio P, Filipponi F, Borghese G, Youssef A, Seracchioli R. Decidualized endometrioma in a non-pregnant woman. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2021; 58:781-782. [PMID: 33794041 DOI: 10.1002/uog.23643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- M Ambrosio
- Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - P Casadio
- Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - F Filipponi
- Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - G Borghese
- Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - A Youssef
- Obstetric Unit, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - R Seracchioli
- Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Liu L, Li W, Leonardi M, Condous G, Da Silva Costa F, Mol BW, Wong L. Diagnostic Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Adenomyosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Review of Sonographic Diagnostic Criteria. JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE 2021; 40:2289-2306. [PMID: 33502767 DOI: 10.1002/jum.15635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Revised: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 01/02/2021] [Indexed: 05/14/2023]
Abstract
We aim to first systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and, second, to evaluate the accuracy of various sonographic diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis. A search of PubMed and Embase yielded 32 eligible studies. In diagnosing adenomyosis, the diagnostic performance of TVUS was found to be high and comparable to the performance of MRI. Of the eight sonographic criteria, only five were assessable. The best individual criterion was echogenic subendometrial lines and buds. Limited data exist for the various sonographic criteria, and further studies are required to compare their performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linly Liu
- Monash Women's, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Wentao Li
- Monash Women's, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mathew Leonardi
- Acute Gynecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endoscopy Surgery Unit, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia
- Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - George Condous
- Acute Gynecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endoscopy Surgery Unit, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia
- Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Fabricio Da Silva Costa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Ben W Mol
- Monash Women's, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lufee Wong
- Monash Women's, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Endometrial Cancer and Adenomyosis. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13194918. [PMID: 34638402 PMCID: PMC8508080 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Revised: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Endometrial cancer (EC) reportedly have a better prognosis in patients with coexistent adenomyosis. It is possible to hypothesize that this difference may be attributable to different clinical profiles. On this account, we aimed to define the clinical profile of endometrial cancer (EC) patients with and without adenomyosis through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included 8 studies with 5681 patients and found that EC women with adenomyosis were less likely to be nulliparous than EC women without adenomyosis, while no significant differences were found with regard to age, BMI, and premenopausal status. Abstract A better endometrial cancer (EC) prognosis in patients with coexistent adenomyosis has been reported. Unfortunately, it is still unclear if this better prognosis is related to a more favorable clinical profile of adenomyosis patients. We aimed to evaluate differences in the clinical profiles of EC patients with and without adenomyosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching seven electronics databases for all studies that allowed extraction of data about clinical characteristics in EC patients with and without adenomyosis. Clinical characteristics assessed were: age, Body Mass Index (BMI), premenopausal status, and nulliparity. Mean difference in mean ± standard deviation (SD) or odds ratio (OR) for clinical characteristics between EC patients with and without adenomyosis were calculated for each included study and as a pooled estimate, and graphically reported on forest plots with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Z test was used for assessing the overall effect by considering a p value < 0.05 as significant. Overall, eight studies with 5681 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven studies with 4366 patients in the quantitative analysis. Pooled mean difference in mean ± SD between EC women with and without adenomyosis was −1.19 (95% CI: −3.18 to 0.80; p = 0.24) for age, and 0.23 (95% CI: −0.62 to 1.07; p = 0.60) for BMI. When compared to EC women without adenomyosis, EC women with adenomyosis showed a pooled OR of 1.53 (95% CI: 0.92 to 2.54; p = 0.10) for premenopausal status, and of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.87; p = 0.007) for nulliparity. In conclusion, there are not significant differences in clinical characteristics between EC patients with and without adenomyosis, with the exception for nulliparity. Clinical features seem to not underlie the better EC prognosis of patients with adenomyosis compared to patients without adenomyosis.
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Clinicopathological features of different subtypes in adenomyosis: Focus on early lesions. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0254147. [PMID: 34260636 PMCID: PMC8279363 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of this study is to investigate the clinicopathological features of intrinsic and extrinsic subtypes in adenomyosis. In particular, we focused on the early lesions of adenomyosis. Methods This is a single-center, prospective study of women who elected surgery for adenomyosis at the Department of Gynecology, Nara Medical University Hospital, Kashihara, Japan, from April 2008 to March 2018. Adenomyosis was histologically classified as intrinsic, extrinsic, and others, depending on the type of intramural growth. Adenomyosis that occurs at the inner and outer myometrium was defined as an intrinsic and extrinsic type, respectively. Results One hundred eighty-nine patients with histologically confirmed adenomyosis were classified into three different types, 74 intrinsic type, 78 extrinsic type, and 37 other type. Compared to the intrinsic type, the extrinsic type was more likely to have endometriosis, including ovarian endometrioma (OMA), superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SUP), or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). To further identify the clinicopathological features of early-stage adenomyosis, we focused only on patients with intrinsic and extrinsic types of adenomyosis with less than one-third of muscular layer infiltration. Patients with early-stage intrinsic adenomyosis were more likely to experience induced abortions. Patients with early-stage extrinsic adenomyosis were more likely to have endometriosis. The coexistence of endometriosis and the lack of induced abortion were independent predictors of extrinsic adenomyosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified coexistence of endometriosis as independent predictors of the early stage extrinsic adenomyosis. Conclusion The study suggests that there are at least two types of adenomyosis, where the intrinsic type is closely associated with a history of induced abortion, while the extrinsic type is strongly associated with endometriosis. Adenomyosis might be a gynecological disorder with complex pathogenesis implicating both traumatic and endometriotic factors.
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Raimondo D, Raffone A, Travaglino A, Maletta M, Casadio P, Ambrosio M, Chiara Aru A, Santoro A, Franco Zannoni G, Insabato L, Mollo A, Zullo F, Seracchioli R. Impact of adenomyosis on the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021; 157:265-270. [PMID: 34228822 PMCID: PMC9292168 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13818] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2021] [Revised: 05/19/2021] [Accepted: 07/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Background Despite the high prevalence of adenomyosis in hysterectomy specimens of endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients, the relationship between adenomyosis and EC prognosis appears unclear. Objective To assess the prognostic value of coexistent adenomyosis in patients with EC. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed by searching six electronic databases for studies reporting data on prognosis of EC patients with and without coexistent adenomyosis. Studies with patient selection based on prognostic factors were excluded. Pooled univariate hazard ratio (HR) analyses for overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DRF) were performed, using EC patients without adenomyosis as a control group. For DFS, pooled multivariate HR analysis was also evaluable. Results Three studies of 2505 EC patients (553 with and 1952 without adenomyosis) were included. Compared with EC patients without adenomyosis, EC patients with coexistent adenomyosis showed a pooled HR of 0.533 (CI 95%, 0.329–0.864) for OS at univariate analysis; 0.536 (CI 95%, 0.334–0.859) for DFS at univariate analysis; and 0.875 (CI 95%, 0.331–2.315) for DFS at multivariate analysis. Conclusion In EC patients with coexistent adenomyosis, the risk of death is halved compared with EC patients without adenomyosis. However, the independence of this association needs to be verified in future studies. The risk of death is halved in EC patients with coexistent adenomyosis compared with EC patients without adenomyosis, whereas the risk of EC recurrence does not appear to be affected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Raimondo
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Antonio Raffone
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Antonio Travaglino
- Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Manuela Maletta
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Paolo Casadio
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Ambrosio
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Anna Chiara Aru
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Angela Santoro
- Pathology Unit, Department of Woman and Child Health, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Gian Franco Zannoni
- Pathology Unit, Department of Woman and Child Health, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Luigi Insabato
- Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Antonio Mollo
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry "Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Salerno, Italy
| | - Fulvio Zullo
- Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Renato Seracchioli
- Division of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Kohl Schwartz AS, Mueller MD. Herausforderung Adenomyose – operative, endokrine und reproduktionsmedizinische Therapieoptionen. GYNAKOLOGISCHE ENDOKRINOLOGIE 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s10304-020-00355-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
ZusammenfassungDie Adenomyose ist durch endometriale Zellen im Myometrium charakterisiert. Zu den klinischen Beschwerden gehören Schmerzen, Blutungsstörungen und beeinträchtigte Fertilität. Die Abklärung beinhaltet eine gute Anamnese und die Bildgebung mit transvaginalem Ultraschall (TVUS) sowie ggf. Magnetresonanztomographie. Klassisch zeigt sich die Adenomyose im TVUS durch partielle Aufhebung der Junktionalzone. Die Therapie erfolgt ganzheitlich und beinhaltet ein gutes Schmerzmanagement. Bei jungen Patientinnen sollte eine endokrine Therapie erfolgen. Die Kinderwunschtherapie kann mit einer 3‑monatigen Down-Regulation mit Gonadotropin-Releasing-Hormon(GnRH)-Analoga eingeleitet werden. Bei notwendiger In-vitro-Fertilisation haben Protokolle mit ultralanger Down-Regulation oder zeitlich versetztem Embryotransfer nach GnRH-Analoga bessere Resultate gezeigt. Bei fortgeschrittener Erkrankung, abgeschlossener Familienplanung oder Therapieresistenz kommt die operative Sanierung oder Hysterektomie infrage.
Collapse
|
|
18
|
da Silva JR, Andres MP, Leite APK, Gomes MTNDA, Neto JS, Baracat EC, Carmona F, Abrão MS. Comparison of Sensitivity and Specificity of Structured and Narrative Reports of Transvaginal Ultrasonogaphy for Adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020; 28:1216-1224. [PMID: 33207253 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Revised: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare the sensitivity and specificity of the transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) narrative report with those of the structured report for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. DESIGN Retrospective study. SETTING A tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS One hundred ninety-two patients (45 with adenomyosis and 147 controls) who underwent hysterectomy between 2012 and 2016 and were aged 30 years to 55 years, with available preoperative TVUS images, were included. INTERVENTIONS To compare preoperative TVUS with histologic analysis of the uterus after hysterectomy for the diagnostic of adenomyosis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Data regarding the presence of the ultrasonographic characteristics previously described for the diagnosis of adenomyosis were obtained from the original TVUS report (narrative report) and the structured report from 2 blinded radiologists (R1 and R2). Histologic analysis is defined as the gold standard for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. The mean age (45.4 ± 5.3 years vs 44.9 ± 4.8 years; p = .496) and clinical symptoms were similar between the adenomyosis and control groups, except for dyspareunia, which was more frequently reported in the patients with adenomyosis (25.6% vs 9.4%; p = .006). Most of TVUS characteristics were more frequently observed in the structured reports than in the narrative reports. The structured report presented higher sensitivity (R1: 84.4%, R2: 69.1%; narrative report: 31.1%; p <.05) and lower specificity (R1: 28.0%, R2: 31.2%; narrative report: 90.5%; p <.05) for adenomyosis. The structured report presented higher sensitivity and lower specificity for most of sonographic characteristics evaluated. After logistic regression analysis, no sonographic characteristics presented with statistical significance for the diagnosis of adenomyosis on R1's structured report, while globular uterus (odds ratio [OR] 0.276; p = .006; 95% CI, 0.11-0.697) and poorly defined junctional zone (OR 3.6; p = .007; 95% CI, 1.4-9.2) were significantly associated with adenomyosis. In the narrative report, a myometrial cyst was associated with a higher risk of adenomyosis (odds ratio 9.486, p =.002; CI, 2.359-38.149). CONCLUSION The narrative reports were more specific, whereas the structured reports were more sensitive for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. In addition, the sensitivity of most of sonographic feature of adenomyosis was higher and the specificity was lower in the structured report. Future prospective studies comparing both reports are needed to validate the current findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliana Ribeiro da Silva
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia (Drs. da Silva, Andres, Baracat, and Abrão)
| | - Marina Paula Andres
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia (Drs. da Silva, Andres, Baracat, and Abrão); Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, Gynecologic Division, BP-A Beneficencia Portuguesa de São Paulo (Drs. Andres, Neto, and Abrão), São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Joao Siufi Neto
- Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, Gynecologic Division, BP-A Beneficencia Portuguesa de São Paulo (Drs. Andres, Neto, and Abrão), São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Edmund Chada Baracat
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia (Drs. da Silva, Andres, Baracat, and Abrão)
| | - Francisco Carmona
- Clinical Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics, and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (Dr. Carmona)
| | - Mauricio Simões Abrão
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia (Drs. da Silva, Andres, Baracat, and Abrão); Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, Gynecologic Division, BP-A Beneficencia Portuguesa de São Paulo (Drs. Andres, Neto, and Abrão), São Paulo, Brazil.
| |
Collapse
|