Comparison of 3-Tesla to 1.5-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Enterography to assess multifocal and multicentric bowel endometriosis: Results in routine practice

Comparison between CT-enterography and MR-enterography for the diagnosis of right-sided deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel

OBJECTIVE

To compare computed tomography-enterography (CTE) and magnetic resonance-enterography (MRE) in the detection of right-sided bowel deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty women with DIE who underwent preoperatively CTE and MRE were included. CTE and MRE were first analyzed separately by two independent readers who analyzed five bowel segments (cecum, appendix, ileocecal junction, distal ileum and proximal small bowel [i.e., proximal ileum and jejunum]) for the presence of DIE and then interpreted in consensus. CTE, MRE and CTE with MRE were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Interobserver agreement was assessed with kappa (κ) test.

RESULTS

Using the reference standard 25 out 250 bowel segments were involved by DIE in 18 women and 225 were free of DIE. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CTE were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39-79), 93% (95% CI: 89-96) and 90% (95% CI: 85-93) for Reader 1, respectively, and 52% (95% CI: 31-72), 99% (95% CI: 97-100) and 94% (95% CI: 91-97) for Reader 2, with no differences in sensitivity (P = 0.564) and specificity (P = 0.181) between readers and fair interobserver agreement (κ = 0.37). For MRE these figures were 52% (95% CI: 31-72), 92% (95% CI: 88-95) and 88% (95% CI: 84-92) for Reader 1 and 60% (95% CI: 39-79), 99% (95% CI: 96-100) and 95% (95% CI: 91-97) for Reader 2, with no differences in sensitivity (P = 0.157) and specificity (P = 0.061) between readers and fair interobserver agreement (κ = 0.31). Significant differences in sensitivity (20%; 95% CI: 7-41) were found between CTE + MRE vs. CTE alone for Reader 1 and vs. MRE alone for Reader 2 (P = 0.041 for both) CONCLUSION: CTE and MRE have not different sensitivities and convey only fair interobserver agreement but are highly specific for the diagnosis of right-sided bowel DIE. CTE and MRE are complementary because they improve the detection of DIE implants when used in combination.

Deep pelvic infiltrating endometriosis: MRI consensus lexicon and compartment-based approach from the ENDOVALIRM group

PURPOSE

The purpose of this consensus article was to develop guidelines by a focused panel of experts to elaborate a lexicon of image interpretation, and a standardized region-based reporting of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidence-based data and expert opinion were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of pelvic compartment delineation and reporting template were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "RECOMMENDED" versus "NOT RECOMMENDED" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts).

RESULTS

Consensus regarding pelvic compartment delineation and DIE reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. The pelvis was divided in nine compartments and extrapelvic lesions were assigned to an additional (tenth) compartment. A consensus was also reached for each structure attributed to a compartment and each reporting template item among the experts. No consensus was reached for a normal aspect of uterosacral ligament, but a consensus was reached for an unequivocal involvement leading to a positive diagnosis and an equivocal involvement leading to uncertain diagnosis. Tailored MRI lexicon and standardized region-based report were proposed.

CONCLUSION

These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for DIE reporting and staging with MRI. Standardized MRI compartment-based structured reporting is recommended to enable consistent accuracy and help select the best therapeutic approach.

Clinical outcomes following surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis

The main aim of the study was to evaluate severe post-operative complications following deep endometriosis surgery in a tertiary referral centre. This is a retrospective cohort study that included women who had surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis between 1st January 2013 and 31st December 2019. Endometriosis was diagnosed based on clinical, imaging and histological parameters. We evaluated the rates of post-operative complications, potential risk factors for such complications and postoperative pregnancy rates. A total of 165 patients were included in the final analysis. The median follow-up was 63 (25-106) months. Thirty-seven patients (22.42%) had hysterectomy, 60 (36.81%) had ureterolysis and 44 (26.67%) had colorectal surgery. The overall and severe rates of post-operative complications were 16.20% (n = 23) and 2.42% (n = 4) respectively. Of the variables assessed, operative time and age were the only statistically significant risk factor for complications on multivariate analysis. Among women operated on for infertility, 34.5% (n = 20/58) got pregnant following surgery with 30% of these spontaneously. This study demonstrates acceptable overall and severe post-operative complications and pregnancy rates after deep endometriosis surgery. This information should help clinicians when counselling women to enable them making an informed choice about their management.

Comparison of routine pelvic US and MR imaging in patients with pathologically confirmed endometriosis

PURPOSE

To estimate the benefit of pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after routine pelvic ultrasound (US) in patients with pathologically or surgically proven endometriosis.

METHODS

Patients with surgically or pathologically proven endometriosis who had routine pelvic US followed by pelvic MR within 6 months prior to surgery were included. Patients were excluded if they had previously confirmed endometriosis, pregnancy, or surgery > 6 months after MR. The detection rate of endometriosis by pelvic US and MR was compared to the surgical/pathological reference standard.

RESULTS

83 female patients (mean age 40 ± 9) met inclusion criteria and had surgical/pathological confirmation of endometriosis. The mean time interval between pelvic US and MR was 33 ± 43 days, with 64 ± 69 days between MR examination and surgery. US detected endometriosis in 22% (18/83) of patients compared to 61% (51/83) for MR (p < 0.0001). 51% (33/65) of patients with a negative pelvic US exam had a positive MR. MR identified additional sites or sequela in the majority of patients with a positive US (14/18; 78%), including extraovarian locations [e.g., fallopian tubes 7/18 (39%), uterus 7/18 (39%), uterine ligaments 6/18 (33%), posterior cul de sac 5/18 (28%), pelvic side walls 5/18 (28%), abdominal wall 1/18 (6%)] and sequela [ovarian tethering 5/18 (28%), 6/18 (33%) bowel adhesive disease, posterior cul de sac obliteration 2/18 (11%), hydrosalpinx 2/18 (11%), and hydronephrosis 1/18 (6%)]. 3 T MR detected endometriosis in 33/46 (72%) patients compared to 18/37 (49%) for 1.5 T MR (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic MR imaging had a higher detection rate of surgically/pathologically proven endometriosis and provides more information about disease location and sequela compared to routine pelvic US.