1
|
Condous G, Gerges B, Thomassin-Naggara I, Becker C, Tomassetti C, Krentel H, van Herendael BJ, Malzoni M, Abrao MS, Saridogan E, Keckstein J, Hudelist G. Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement . Hum Reprod Open 2024; 2024:hoae029. [PMID: 38812884 PMCID: PMC11134890 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoae029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024] Open
Abstract
The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), ESHRE, the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers, and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence-based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non-invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counselling, and planning of surgical treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Condous
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia
| | - B Gerges
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia
- Sydney West Advanced Pelvic Surgery (SWAPS), Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia
| | - I Thomassin-Naggara
- APHP Hopital Tenon, Department of Radiology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - C Becker
- Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, Endometriosis CaRe Centre Oxford, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C Tomassetti
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - H Krentel
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Oncology, Bethesda Hospital, Duisburg, Germany
| | - B J van Herendael
- Department of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen Campus Stuivenberg, Antwerp, Belgium
- Università degli Studi dell‘Insubria, Varese, Italy
| | - M Malzoni
- Endoscopica Malzoni, Centre for Advanced Pelvic Surgery, Avellino, Italy
| | - M S Abrao
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - E Saridogan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - J Keckstein
- Stiftung Endometrioseforschung (SEF), Westerstede, Germany
| | - G Hudelist
- Department of Gynecology, Center for Endometriosis, Hospital St John of God Vienna, Vienna,Austria
- Rudolfinerhaus Private Clinic & Campus, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Condous G, Gerges B, Thomassin-Naggara I, Becker C, Tomassetti C, Krentel H, van Herendael BJ, Malzoni M, Abrao MS, Saridogan E, Keckstein J, Hudelist G. Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2024. [PMID: 38808587 DOI: 10.1002/uog.27560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Revised: 11/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/17/2023] [Indexed: 05/30/2024]
Abstract
The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence‐based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non‐invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counseling and planning of surgical treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Condous
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia
| | - B Gerges
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia
- Sydney West Advanced Pelvic Surgery (SWAPS), Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia
| | - I Thomassin-Naggara
- APHP Hopital Tenon, Department of Radiology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - C Becker
- Endometriosis CaRe Centre Oxford, Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C Tomassetti
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - H Krentel
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Oncology, Bethesda Hospital, Duisburg, Germany
| | - B J van Herendael
- Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen Campus Stuivenberg, Antwerp, Belgium
- Università degli Studi dell'Insubria, Varese, Italy
| | - M Malzoni
- Endoscopica Malzoni, Centre for Advanced Pelvic Surgery, Avellino, Italy
| | - M S Abrao
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - E Saridogan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - J Keckstein
- Stiftung Endometrioseforschung (SEF), Westerstede, Germany
| | - G Hudelist
- Center for Endometriosis, Hospital St. John of God Vienna; Rudolfinerhaus Private Clinic & Campus, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Condous G, Gerges B, Thomassin-Naggara I, Becker C, Tomassetti C, Krentel H, van Herendael BJ, Malzoni M, Abrao MS, Saridogan E, Keckstein J, Hudelist G. Non-Invasive Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Pelvic Deep Endometriosis and Endometriosis Classification Systems: An International Consensus Statement. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2024:S1553-4650(24)00165-1. [PMID: 38819341 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2024]
Abstract
The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence-based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non-invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counseling and planning of surgical treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Condous
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
| | - B Gerges
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia; Sydney West Advanced Pelvic Surgery (SWAPS), Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia
| | - I Thomassin-Naggara
- APHP Hopital Tenon, Department of Radiology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - C Becker
- Endometriosis CaRe Centre Oxford, Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C Tomassetti
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - H Krentel
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Oncology, Bethesda Hospital, Duisburg, Germany
| | - B J van Herendael
- Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen Campus Stuivenberg, Antwerp, Belgium; Università degli Studi dell'Insubria, Varese, Italy
| | - M Malzoni
- Endoscopica Malzoni, Centre for Advanced Pelvic Surgery, Avellino Italy
| | - M S Abrao
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - E Saridogan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - J Keckstein
- Stiftung Endometrioseforschung (SEF), Westerstede, Germany
| | - G Hudelist
- Center for Endometriosis, Hospital St. John of God Vienna; Rudolfinerhaus Private Clinic & Campus, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vannuccini S, Meleca C, Toscano F, Mertino P, Pampaloni F, Fambrini M, Bruni V, Petraglia F. Adenomyosis diagnosis among adolescents and young women with dysmenorrhoea and heavy menstrual bleeding. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 48:103768. [PMID: 38432071 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103768] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Revised: 12/03/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 03/05/2024]
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION What is the prevalence of adenomyosis at ultrasonography among adolescents and young women reporting dysmenorrhoea and/or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB)? DESIGN This observational cohort study involved adolescents and young women referred for dysmenorrhoea and/or HMB to the Adolescent Medicine Unit at Careggi University Hospital, Italy. Patients with endometriosis and bleeding disorders were excluded. Transvaginal ultrasonography or transrectal sonography using a transvaginal probe was performed. The myometrium was described according to the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment criteria. Details of baseline characteristics, clinical data and symptoms were collected. The presence of sonographic features of adenomyosis and the association between imaging findings and clinical symptoms were evaluated. RESULTS The cohort included 95 patients aged between 13 and 25 years, referred for dysmenorrhoea (88.4%), HMB (23.2%) or both (13.7%). According to the MUSA criteria the sonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis was made in 27.4% of patients, with the diffuse type the most prevalent. Uterine wall asymmetry, hyperechoic intramyometrial islands, translesional vascularity and an interrupted junctional zone were the most common features. Patients with imaging findings of adenomyosis had significantly higher rates of HMB than those with a normal myometrial appearance (38.5% versus 17.4%, P = 0.030). In addition, the coexistence of dysmenorrhoea and HMB was significantly associated with adenomyosis (odds ratio 5.68, 95% confidence interval 1.65-19.5). CONCLUSIONS Adenomyosis may be diagnosed among teenagers and young women referred with dysmenorrhoea and/or HMB. The clinical presentation is relevant for the diagnosis, with HMB alone and HMB plus dysmenorrhoea significantly associated with the sonographic identification of adenomyosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvia Vannuccini
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences 'Mario Serio', University of Florence, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Chiara Meleca
- Adolescent Medicine Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Federico Toscano
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences 'Mario Serio', University of Florence, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Pina Mertino
- Adolescent Medicine Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Massimiliano Fambrini
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences 'Mario Serio', University of Florence, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Vincenzina Bruni
- Adolescent Medicine Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Felice Petraglia
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences 'Mario Serio', University of Florence, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
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
|
6
|
Bailey F, Gaughran J, Mitchell S, Ovadia C, Holland TK. Diagnosis of superficial endometriosis on transvaginal ultrasound by visualization of peritoneum of pouch of Douglas. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2024; 63:105-112. [PMID: 37926974 DOI: 10.1002/uog.27529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Revised: 10/02/2023] [Accepted: 10/28/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Around 80% of women with endometriosis have superficial endometriosis (SE) rather than ovarian or deep endometriosis (DE). However, to date, advances in non-invasive, imaging-based diagnosis have been limited to DE or ovarian disease. The objective of this study was to determine whether we can detect SE on transvaginal ultrasound scan (TVS) by assessing the peritoneum of the pouch of Douglas (POD). METHODS This was a retrospective diagnostic test study following a change in practice to include POD peritoneum assessment for SE during TVS at a tertiary London hospital. Eligible patients underwent TVS by a single clinician trained in endometriosis scanning and a subsequent surgical procedure (laparoscopy) between April 2018 and September 2021. Participants formed a consecutive series. The TVS findings were compared with those of laparoscopy as the gold standard. Comparison of TVS findings with intraoperative findings was performed by calculating the diagnostic test performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and positive and negative likelihood ratios). RESULTS The study included a total of 100 patients. We found that 43/100 (43.0%) patients had no endometriosis, 33/100 (33.0%) had SE and 24/100 (24.0%) had DE on laparoscopy. SE was correctly detected on TVS in 17/33 patients, with a sensitivity of 51.5% (95% CI, 33.5-69.2%), specificity of 94.0% (95% CI, 85.4-98.4%), PPV of 81.0% (95% CI, 60.8-92.1%) and NPV of 79.7% (95% CI, 73.4-84.9%). DE was correctly diagnosed in 20/24 cases, including all ovarian cases, with a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI, 62.3-95.3%), specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 90.8-99.7%), PPV of 90.9% (95% CI, 71.6-97.5%) and NPV of 94.9% (95% CI, 88.3-97.8%). The detection of SE on TVS was most accurate in the POD (sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity, 96.4%; PPV, 76.9%; NPV, 88.9%). CONCLUSIONS This study shows that the detection of SE in the POD is possible using routine TVS. While negative TVS does not reliably confirm the absence of disease or replace diagnostic laparoscopy, positive TVS facilitates non-invasive diagnosis for a much larger group of women than was previously possible. This should help to reduce the time from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis and enable initiation of medical treatment without the risk, cost and delay associated with a surgical diagnosis. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Bailey
- Department of Women's Health, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - J Gaughran
- Department of Women's Health, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Mitchell
- Department of Women's Health, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - C Ovadia
- Department of Women's Health, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine at Guy's, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - T K Holland
- Department of Women's Health, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Maple S, Chalmers KJ, Bezak E, Henry K, Parange N. Ultrasound Characteristics and Scanning Techniques of Uterosacral Ligaments for the Diagnosis of Endometriosis: A Systematic Review. JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE 2023; 42:1193-1209. [PMID: 36409651 DOI: 10.1002/jum.16129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 10/06/2022] [Accepted: 10/30/2022] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
Endometriosis is a common and painful gynaecological condition that takes an average of 6.4years to diagnose. While laparoscopic surgery is the recommend gold standard in diagnosis of endometriosis, transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) is able to assist surgeons in the planning and management of patients, especially when there is limited visualisation in the posterior compartment. Uterosacral ligaments (USL) are located in the posterior compartment and are one of the first and most common places that endometriosis deposits, The International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group consensus, which are the current guidelines for DE imaging, recommends a thorough ultrasound assessment to identify endometriotic disease. This includes an assessment of anatomic structures in the posterior compartment including the USLs. However, IDEA does not explicitly articulate specifics of USL imaging and measurements on ultrasound. The primary aim of this review is to determine is to identify ultrasound techniques and characteristics of USLs in the diagnosis of deep infiltrative endometriosis (DE). The secondary aim is to describe and summarise these findings into normal and pathological findings. A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A population, interventions, comparator, and outcome framework was used to define a search strategy. Articles were screened using Covidence review management system, and data was extracted by two authors using a standardised and piolet-tested form. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Medline, Embase and Scopus and Google Scholar were searched yielding 250 articles, with 22 being included in the review. Analysis of the data demonstrated inconsistent reporting of ultrasound techniques and characteristics of USLs. Most (20/22) papers described abnormal criteria of USLs, only 5/22 papers determined what the normal USL appearance is or what techniques (11/22) were applied. Even though reporting was heterogeneous, there was a high level of tertiary centre participation with gynaecological experienced operators, therefore was a high level of agreement. Through review of the current literature, this study has investigated ultrasound techniques and characteristics of USLs for the diagnosis of DE. All papers included in this review reported presence of pathological sonographic findings of the USLs when DE was presented therefore it is recommended that USL examination become a part of TVS exams when DE is clinically suspected. This study also demonstrated that there was lack of data and no agreement when it comes to measuring USLs with DE. Even so, the current evidence demonstrates that scanning the USLs, and locating, identifying, and describing USL thickening and endometriotic nodules in the various locations using the described techniques and characteristics in this review has clinical value in early diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shae Maple
- Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
| | - K Jane Chalmers
- Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
| | - Eva Bezak
- Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
| | - Katelyn Henry
- Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
| | - Nayana Parange
- Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Keckstein J, Hoopmann M. Endometriosis, ultrasound and #Enzian classification: the need for a common language for non-invasive diagnostics. ULTRASCHALL IN DER MEDIZIN (STUTTGART, GERMANY : 1980) 2023; 44:233-239. [PMID: 37279767 DOI: 10.1055/a-2055-6712] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
|
9
|
Sewell T, Orchard M, O'Donovan O, Longman RJ. The value of pre-operative outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2023; 15:123-129. [PMID: 37436048 PMCID: PMC10410654 DOI: 10.52054/fvvo.15.2.076] [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: 07/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DE) is a particularly severe disease which affects 10-20% of women with endometriosis. 90% of DE is rectovaginal and when suspected, some clinicians have suggested the routine use of flexible sigmoidoscopy to identify intraluminal disease. We aimed to assess the value of sigmoidoscopy prior to surgery for rectovaginal DE, both in terms of diagnosis and planning management. OBJECTIVES We aimed to assess the value of sigmoidoscopy prior to surgery for rectovaginal DE. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective case series study was performed from a consecutive cohort of patients with DE referred for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy between January 2010 and January 2020. All patients were under the care of a specialist endometriosis multidisciplinary team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the incidence of luminal disease. RESULTS 102 consecutive cases were analysed with no cases confirming intraluminal disease. Non-specific evidence of endometriosis such as tight angulation of the bowel was found in 36.3%. Following sigmoidoscopy 100 patients proceeded to surgery and the risk of bowel resection during surgery was 4%. CONCLUSIONS Due to the low incidence of luminal endometriosis, performing sigmoidoscopy routinely is of limited benefit. We recommend the selective use of sigmoidoscopy where serious pathology such as colorectal neoplasia is considered or to determine the location of endometriosis lesions which aids subsequent resectional surgery planning. WHAT IS NEW? This large case series details a very low incidence of intraluminal disease and makes recommendations for the specific scenarios where flexible sigmoidoscopy should be used.
Collapse
|
10
|
Thomassin-Naggara I, Monroc M, Chauveau B, Fauconnier A, Verpillat P, Dabi Y, Gavrel M, Bolze PA, Darai E, Touboul C, Lamrabet S, Collinet P, Zareski E, Bourdel N, Roman H, Rousset P. Multicenter External Validation of the Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Index Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2311686. [PMID: 37140921 PMCID: PMC10160872 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.11686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Preoperative mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE) is crucial as surgery can be complex and the quality of preoperative information is key. Objective To evaluate the Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Index (dPEI) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score in a multicenter cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, the surgical databases of 7 French referral centers were retrospectively queried for women who underwent surgery and preoperative MRI for DPE between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed in October 2022. Intervention Magnetic resonance imaging scans were reviewed using a dedicated lexicon and classified according to the dPEI score. Main outcomes and measures Operating time, hospital stay, Clavien-Dindo-graded postoperative complications, and presence of de novo voiding dysfunction. Results The final cohort consisted of 605 women (mean age, 33.3; 95% CI, 32.7-33.8 years). A mild dPEI score was reported in 61.2% (370) of the women, moderate in 25.8% (156), and severe in 13.1% (79). Central endometriosis was described in 93.2% (564) of the women and lateral endometriosis in 31.2% (189). Lateral endometriosis was more frequent in severe (98.7%) vs moderate (48.7%) disease and in moderate vs mild (6.7%) disease according to the dPEI (P < .001). Median operating time (211 minutes) and hospital stay (6 days) were longer in severe DPE than in moderate DPE (operating time, 150 minutes; hospital stay 4 days; P < .001), and in moderate than in mild DPE (operating time; 110 minutes; hospital stay, 3 days; P < .001). Patients with severe disease were 3.6 times more likely to experience severe complications than patients with mild or moderate disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% CI, 1.4-8.9; P = .004). They were also more likely to experience postoperative voiding dysfunction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.6; P = .001). Interobserver agreement between senior and junior readers was good (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study suggest the ability of the dPEI to predict operating time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and de novo postoperative voiding dysfunction in a multicenter cohort. The dPEI may help clinicians to better anticipate the extent of DPE and improve clinical management and patient counseling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara
- Department of Radiology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris–Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France
- Service Imageries Radiologiques et Interventionnelles Spécialisées Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Michele Monroc
- Department of Radiology, Clinique Saint-Antoine, Bois-Guillaume, France
| | - Benoit Chauveau
- Radiology Department, CHU Estaing Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Arnaud Fauconnier
- Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de recherche 7285 Risques cliniques et sécurité en santé des femmes et en santé périnatale, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
- Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Service de Gynecologie et Obstétrique, Poissy CEDEX, France
| | | | - Yohann Dabi
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris–Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France
| | - Marie Gavrel
- Department of Radiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, EMR 3738, Pierre Bénite, France
| | - Pierre-Adrien Bolze
- Department of Gynecological and Oncological Surgery, Obstetrics, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, EMR 3738 CICLY, Pierre Bénite, France
| | - Emile Darai
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris–Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France
| | - Cyril Touboul
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris–Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France
| | - Samia Lamrabet
- Department of radiology. Centre Hospitalier intercommunal de Creteil
| | - Pierre Collinet
- Hôpital privé Le Bois, Ramsay Lille métropole, Lille, France
| | - Elise Zareski
- Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Service de Radiologie, Poissy CEDEX, France
| | - Nicolas Bourdel
- Gynecology Department, CHU Estaing Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Horace Roman
- IFEMEndo, Clinique Tivoli-Ducos, Bordeaux, France
| | - Pascal Rousset
- Department of Radiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, EMR 3738, Pierre Bénite, France
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Expert opinion on the use of transvaginal sonography for presurgical staging and classification of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023; 307:5-19. [PMID: 36367580 PMCID: PMC9837004 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06766-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Gynecological ultrasonography plays a central role in the management of endometriosis. The rapid technical development as well as the currently increasing evidence for non-invasive diagnostic methods require an updated compilation of recommendations for the use of ultrasound in the management of endometriosis. The present work aims to highlight the accuracy of sonography for diagnosing and classifying endometriosis and will formulate the present list of key messages and recommendations. This paper aims to demonstrate the accuracy of TVS in the diagnosis and classification of endometriosis and to discuss the clinical applications and consequences of TVS findings for indication, surgical planning and assessment of associated risk factors. (1) Sophisticated ultrasound is the primary imaging modality recommended for suspected endometriosis. The examination procedure should be performed according to the IDEA Consensus. (2) Surgical intervention to confirm the diagnosis alone is not recommended. A preoperative imaging procedure with TVS and/or MRI is strongly recommended. (3) Ultrasound examination does not allow the definitive exclusion of endometriosis. (4) The examination is primarily transvaginal and should always be combined with a speculum and a bimanual examination. (5) Additional transabdominal ultrasonography may enhance the accuracy of the examination in case of extra pelvic disease, extensive findings or limited transvaginal access. (6) Sonographic assessment of both kidneys is mandatory when deep endometriosis (DE) and endometrioma are suspected. (7) Endometriomas are well defined by sonographic criteria. When evaluating the ovaries, the use of IOTA criteria is recommended. (8) The description of sonographic findings of deep endometriosis should be systematically recorded and performed using IDEA terminology. (9) Adenomyosis uteri has sonographically well-defined criteria (MUSA) that allow for detection with high sensitivity and specificity. MRI is not superior to differentiated skilled ultrasonography. (10) Classification of the extent of findings should be done according to the #Enzian classification. The current data situation proves the best possible prediction of the intraoperative situs of endometriosis (exclusive peritoneum) for the non-invasive application of the #Enzian classification. (11) Transvaginal sonographic examination by an experienced examiner is not inferior to MRI diagnostics regarding sensitivity and specificity in the prediction of the extent of deep endometriosis. (12) The major advantage of non-invasive imaging and classification of endometriosis is the differentiated planning or possible avoidance of surgical interventions. The recommendations represent the opinion of experts in the field of non-invasive and invasive diagnostics as well as therapy of endometriosis. They were developed with the participation of the following national and international societies: DEGUM, ÖGUM, SGUM, SEF, AGEM/DGGG, and EEL.
Collapse
|
12
|
Advances in Imaging for Assessing Pelvic Endometriosis. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12122960. [PMID: 36552967 PMCID: PMC9777476 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Revised: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent years, due to the development of standardized diagnostic protocols associated with an improvement in the associated technology, the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis using imaging is becoming a reality. In particular, transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance are today the two imaging techniques that can accurately identify the majority of the phenotypes of endometriosis. This review focuses not only on these most common imaging modalities but also on some additional radiological techniques that were proposed for rectosigmoid colon endometriosis, such as double-contrast barium enema, rectal endoscopic ultrasonography, multidetector computed tomography enema, computed tomography colonography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography with 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-estradiol.
Collapse
|
13
|
Transvaginal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Assessment of Endometriosis-An Overview: How, Why, and When. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12122912. [PMID: 36552919 PMCID: PMC9777206 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122912] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2022] [Revised: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 11/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological disease, causing symptoms such as pelvic pain and infertility. Accurate diagnosis and assessment are often challenging. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS), along with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are the most common imaging modalities. In this narrative review, we present the evidence behind the role of TVS in the diagnosis and assessment of endometriosis. We recognize three forms of endometriosis: Ovarian endometriomas (OMAs) can be adequately assessed by transvaginal ultrasound. Superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SUP) is challenging to diagnose by either imaging modality. TVS, in the hands of appropriately trained clinicians, appears to be non-inferior to MRI in the diagnosis and assessment of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). The IDEA consensus standardized the terminology and offered a structured approach in the assessment of endometriosis by ultrasound. TVS can be used in the non-invasive staging of endometriosis using the available classification systems (rASRM, #ENZIAN). Given its satisfactory overall diagnostic accuracy, wide availability, and low cost, it should be considered as the first-line imaging modality in the diagnosis and assessment of endometriosis. Modifications to the original ultrasound technique can be employed on a case-by-case basis. Improved training and future advances in ultrasound technology are likely to further increase its diagnostic performance.
Collapse
|
14
|
Wang PH, Yang ST, Chang WH, Liu CH, Lee FK, Lee WL. Endometriosis: Part I. Basic concept. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 61:927-934. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2022.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
|
15
|
Effectiveness of ultrasound for endometriosis diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2022; 34:324-331. [PMID: 36036477 DOI: 10.1097/gco.0000000000000812] [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 Endometriosis is a chronic benign gynaecological condition characterized by pelvic pain, subfertility and delay in diagnosis. There is an emerging philosophical shift from gold standard histopathological diagnosis through laparoscopy to establishing diagnosis through noninvasive imaging. RECENT FINDINGS The ENZIAN classification system was updated in 2021 to be suitable for both diagnostic imaging and laparoscopy. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) in diagnosing endometriosis varies depending on location of the lesion. A recent international pilot study found that when ultrasound is performed in accordance with the IDEA consensus, a higher detection of deep endometriosis is seen, with an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 79% compared with direct surgical visualization. SUMMARY Although ultrasound can detect adenomyosis, deep endometriosis and endometriomas, it is not possible to reliably detect superficial endometriosis. In the instance of a negative ultrasound with persistence of symptoms despite medical therapy, laparoscopy should be considered for diagnosis and treatment.
Collapse
|
16
|
Pascoal E, Wessels JM, Aas-Eng MK, Abrao MS, Condous G, Jurkovic D, Espada M, Exacoustos C, Ferrero S, Guerriero S, Hudelist G, Malzoni M, Reid S, Tang S, Tomassetti C, Singh SS, Van den Bosch T, Leonardi M. Strengths and limitations of diagnostic tools for endometriosis and relevance in diagnostic test accuracy research. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2022; 60:309-327. [PMID: 35229963 DOI: 10.1002/uog.24892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2021] [Revised: 02/20/2022] [Accepted: 02/22/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Endometriosis is a chronic systemic disease that can cause pain, infertility and reduced quality of life. Diagnosing endometriosis remains challenging, which yields diagnostic delays for patients. Research on diagnostic test accuracy in endometriosis can be difficult due to verification bias, as not all patients with endometriosis undergo definitive diagnostic testing. The purpose of this State-of-the-Art Review is to provide a comprehensive update on the strengths and limitations of the diagnostic modalities used in endometriosis and discuss the relevance of diagnostic test accuracy research pertaining to each. We performed a comprehensive literature review of the following methods: clinical assessment including history and physical examination, biomarkers, diagnostic imaging, surgical diagnosis and histopathology. Our review suggests that, although non-invasive diagnostic methods, such as clinical assessment, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, do not yet qualify formally as replacement tests for surgery in diagnosing all subtypes of endometriosis, they are likely to be appropriate for advanced stages of endometriosis. We also demonstrate in our review that all methods have strengths and limitations, leading to our conclusion that there should not be a single gold-standard diagnostic method for endometriosis, but rather, multiple accepted diagnostic methods appropriate for different circumstances. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Pascoal
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - J M Wessels
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- AIMA Laboratories Inc., Hamilton, Canada
| | - M K Aas-Eng
- Department of Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital Ulleval, Oslo, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - M S Abrao
- Gynecologic Division, BP-A Beneficencia Portuguesa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- Disciplina de Ginecologia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - G Condous
- Acute Gynecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - D Jurkovic
- Institute for Women's Health, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - M Espada
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Blue Mountains ANZAC Memorial Hospital, Katoomba, Australia
- Sydney Medical School, Sydney, Australia
| | - C Exacoustos
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, University of Rome 'Tor Vergata', Rome, Italy
| | - S Ferrero
- Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - S Guerriero
- Centro Integrato di Procreazione Medicalmente Assistita (PMA) e Diagnostica Ostetrico-Ginecologica, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria-Policlinico Duilio Casula, Cagliari, Italy
| | - G Hudelist
- Department of Gynecology, Center for Endometriosis, St John of God Hospital, Vienna, Austria
- Scientific Endometriosis Foundation (SEF), Westerstede, Germany
| | - M Malzoni
- Endoscopica Malzoni, Center for Advanced Endoscopic Gynecologic Surgery, Avellino, Italy
| | - S Reid
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia
| | - S Tang
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - C Tomassetti
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven University Fertility Centre, Leuven, Belgium
| | - S S Singh
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada
| | - T Van den Bosch
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M Leonardi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Sydney Medical School, Sydney, Australia
- Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
The current and future state of surgery in reproductive endocrinology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2022; 34:164-171. [PMID: 35895956 DOI: 10.1097/gco.0000000000000797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The last decade has witnessed a radical change in the field of reproductive surgery. The increasing success of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has caused a huge shift in emphasis with many downstream consequences. This review outlines the changes and provides insight into the future of reproductive surgery. RECENT FINDINGS With compelling evidence that IVF overcomes the detrimental effects of endometriosis on infertility and with two new oral medications available for management of endometriosis, momentum is shifting towards nonsurgical management of endometriosis. There is increasing recognition that except for submucous myomas, other myomas are unlikely to affect fertility and miscarriage. This, in addition to many emerging alternative modalities for management of myomas (oral GnRH antagonists, radiofrequency ablation), is likely to further decrease classic myomectomies but provide alternative, less invasive options. Caesarean scar defects have been recognized as having significant reproductive consequences and surgical management has become the standard of care. Fallopian tubes are now implicated in development of ovarian cancer, and as a result, salpingectomies are being performed in lieu of tubal ligations. Tubal anastomosis will soon become a historical surgery. Division of uterine septum remains controversial, and a clear answer will remain elusive. Uterine transplant is the single most significant advance in reproductive surgery in the past century. SUMMARY Reproductive surgery is evolving with the times. Although some surgical techniques will become historical, others will become mainstream.
Collapse
|
18
|
Deslandes A, Parange N, Childs JT, Osborne B, Hull ML, Panuccio C, Croft A, Bezak E. What is the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for endometriosis mapping prior to surgery when performed by a sonographer within an outpatient women's imaging centre? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 67:267-276. [PMID: 35897127 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13461] [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: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study aimed to assess the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) for the mapping of endometriosis before surgery when performed by sonographers in an outpatient women's imaging centre. METHODS A prospective longitudinal cohort study was performed. The study group comprised of 201 women who underwent a comprehensive TVUS assessment, performed by a sonographer. Laparoscopy was performed as the reference standard. Complete TVUS and surgical data were available for 53 women who were included in the final analysis. RESULTS Endometriosis was confirmed at a surgery in 50/53 (94.3%) participants, with 25/53 (47.2%) having deep endometriosis (DE) nodules and/or endometriomas present. TVUS for mapping of DE had an overall sensitivity of 84.0%, specificity of 89.3%, PPV of 87.5%, NPV of 86.2%, LR+ of 7.85, LR- of 0.18, and accuracy of 86.8% (P < 0.001). Ovarian immobility had poor sensitivity for detecting localised superficial endometriosis, DE, adhesions, and/or endometriomas (Left = 61.9% and right = 13.3%) but high specificities (left = 87.5% and right = 94.7%). Site-specific tenderness had low sensitivities and moderate specificities for the same. All soft markers of endometriosis failed to reach statistical significance except for left ovarian immobility (P = <0.001). CONCLUSION Sonographers well experienced in obstetric and gynaecological imaging, working in an outpatient women's imaging setting can accurately map DE; however, the performance of soft markers for detection of SE was poor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison Deslandes
- Specialist Imaging Partners, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Unit of Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Nayana Parange
- Unit of Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jessie T Childs
- Unit of Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Brooke Osborne
- Unit of Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - M Louise Hull
- Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Catrina Panuccio
- Specialist Imaging Partners, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Anthea Croft
- Specialist Imaging Partners, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Eva Bezak
- Unit of Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,School of Physical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|