Can magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0-Tesla reliably detect patients with endometriosis? Initial results

The Impact of Evolving Endometriosis Guidelines on Diagnosis and Observational Health Studies

STUDY QUESTION

Do recent changes in European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) clinical guidelines result in more comprehensive diagnosis of women with endometriosis?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The latest shift in clinical guidelines results in diagnosis of more women with endometriosis but current ESHRE diagnostic criteria do not capture a sizable percentage of women with the disease.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Historically, laparoscopy was the gold standard for diagnosing endometriosis, a complex gynecological condition marked by a heterogeneous set of symptoms that vary widely among women. More recently, changes in clinical guidelines have shifted to incorporate imaging-based approaches such as transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

Retrospective, observational cohort study of women aged 15-49 years diagnosed with endometriosis in the United States (US) between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2023.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Data sources include US insurance claims data from the Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial Database (CCAE), Merative™ MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid Database (MDCD), Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (Optum® EHR), and electronic health record (EHR) data from a large academic medical center in New York City (CUIMC EHR). To examine the potential impact of expanding clinical criteria for the diagnosis of endometriosis, we validated and compared five cohort definitions based on different sets of diagnostic guidelines involving combinations of surgical confirmation, diagnostic imaging, guideline-recognized symptoms, and other symptoms commonly reported among women with endometriosis. We performed pairwise comparisons between cohorts and applied Bonferroni corrections to account for multiple comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We identified 491,048 women with a diagnosis of endometriosis across the CCAE, MDCD, Optum EHR, and CUIMC EHR datasets. Each cohort definition demonstrated strong positive predictive value (0.84-0.96), yet only 15-20% of cases were identified by all 5 cohort definitions. Women diagnosed with endometriosis based on imaging and symptoms were three years younger, on average, than women with a diagnosis based on surgical confirmation (mean age = 35 years [SD = 9] vs 38 years [SD = 8]; p<0.001). Women in cohorts based only on symptoms were two years younger than those based on surgery (36 years [SD = 8] vs 38 years [SD = 8]; p<0.001). More than one-fourth of cases presented with endometriosis-related symptoms but lacked surgical or imaging-related documentation required by ESHRE guideline criteria. Pain was reported among nearly all women with endometriosis. Abdominal pain and pain in the pelvis were the most prevalent (ranging from 69% to 90% of women in each cohort). Among approximately 2-5% of all endometriosis cases (14,795 total), women presented with pelvic and/or abdominal pain but none of the other symptoms noted in clinical guidelines.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our study has potential biases associated with documentation practices and secondary data use of insurance claims and EHR data. Further, the phenotyping algorithms used rely on clinical codes that do not necessarily capture all ESHRE diagnostic criteria for endometriosis and may not be generalizable to women with atypical presentation of endometriosis.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

High positive predictive value among all five cohort definitions despite poor overlap among cases identified illustrates both the heterogeneous presentation of the disease and importance of expanding diagnostic criteria. For example, cohorts derived from updated guidelines identified younger patients at time of diagnosis. Women diagnosed based on imaging had higher rates of emergency room visits while patients diagnosed via laparoscopy had a larger number of hospitalizations. The substantial number of cases with pelvic and/or abdominal pain but none of the other symptoms noted in clinical guidelines underscores the continued need for improved access to timely and appropriate care, particularly among those with non-classical symptoms, different care-seeking patterns, or lack of available surgical intervention.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common condition impacting individuals assigned female at birth. Though incompletely understood, the disorder is caused by endometrial-like tissue located outside of the endometrial cavity, associated with inflammation and fibrosis. Clinical presentation is variable, ranging from asymptomatic to severe pelvic pain and infertility. Treatment is determined by the patient's individualized goals and can include medical therapies to temporize symptoms or definitive surgical excision. Imaging is used to help diagnose endometriosis and for treatment planning. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Three Types of Endometriosis: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Treatment. State of the Art

At present, there is no curative treatment for endometriosis. Medical management and surgical treatment do not provide long-term relief. A detailed understanding of its pathophysiology is mandatory in order to facilitate both the diagnosis and treatment. The delay that typically precedes proper diagnosis (6 to 7 years) is probably one of the most challenging aspects of endometriosis management. In 2012, the total cost per woman due to endometriosis was estimated to be 9579€ per year in a multicenter study across the USA and Europe. According to their physiopathology and their localization, ectopic endometrial lesions, consisting of endometrial glands and stroma, can be divided into three different types: superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), ovarian endometrioma (OMA), and deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). The following paper aims to review the available data in the literature on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of different types of endometriosis.

ESHRE guideline: endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION

How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The current guideline provides 109 recommendations on diagnosis, treatments for pain and infertility, management of disease recurrence, asymptomatic or extrapelvic disease, endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women, prevention and the association with cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometriosis is a chronic condition with a plethora of presentations in terms of not only the occurrence of lesions, but also the presence of signs and symptoms. The most important symptoms include pain and infertility.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 December 2020 and written in English were included in the literature review.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within specialist subgroups and then presented to the core guideline development group (GDG) until consensus was reached. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians to apply best care for women with endometriosis. Although studies mostly focus on women of reproductive age, the guideline also addresses endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women. The guideline outlines the diagnostic process for endometriosis, which challenges laparoscopy and histology as gold standard diagnostic tests. The options for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms include analgesics, medical treatments and surgery. Non-pharmacological treatments are also discussed. For management of endometriosis-associated infertility, surgical treatment and/or medically assisted reproduction are feasible. While most of the more recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, there are five topics in which significant changes to recommendations were required and changes in clinical practice are to be expected.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline describes different management options but, based on existing evidence, no firm recommendations could be formulated on the most appropriate treatments. Also, for specific clinical issues, such as asymptomatic endometriosis or extrapelvic endometriosis, the evidence is too scarce to make evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in endometriosis care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in endometriosis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. C.M.B. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare and the European Commission; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with ObsEva (Data Safety Monitoring Group) and Myovant (Scientific Advisory Group). A.B. reports grants from FEMaLE executive board member and European Commission Horizon 2020 grant; consulting fees from Ethicon Endo Surgery, Medtronic; honoraria for lectures from Ethicon; and support for meeting attendance from Gedeon Richter; A.H. reports grants from MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring; Consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics, Nordic Pharma, Chugai and Benevolent Al Bio Limited all paid to the institution; a pending patent on Serum endometriosis biomarker; he is also Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials. O.H. reports consulting fees and speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer AG; support for attending meetings from Gedeon-Richter, and leadership roles at the Finnish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Nordic federation of the societies of obstetrics and gynecology. L.K. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; support for attending meetings from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; he also has a leadership role in the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (DGGEF). M.K. reports grants from French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM), Australian Ministry of Health, Medical Research Future Fund and French National Cancer Institute; support for meeting attendance from European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Congress on Endometriosis (EEC) and ESHRE; She is an advisory Board Member, FEMaLe Project (Finding Endometriosis Using Machine Learning), Scientific Committee Chair for the French Foundation for Research on Endometriosis and Scientific Committee Chair for the ComPaRe-Endometriosis cohort. A.N. reports grants from Merck SA and Ferring; speaker fees from Merck SA and Ferring; support for meeting attendance from Merck SA; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; she also is a board member of medical advisory board, Endometriosis Society, the Netherlands (patients advocacy group) and an executive board member of the World Endometriosis Society. E.S. reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, Rosetrees Trust, Barts and the London Charity; Royalties from De Gruyter (book editor); consulting fees from Hologic; speakers fees from Hologic, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Intuitive, Olympus and Karl Storz; Participation in the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); he is also Ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society. C.T. reports grants from Merck SA; Consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; speaker fees from Merck SA, all paid to the institution; and support for meeting attendance from Ferring, Gedeon Richter and Merck SA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Imaging for evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis

Endometriosis and adenomyosis are two frequent diseases that impair women's quality of life by causing pain and infertility. Both endometriosis and adenomyosis are heterogeneous diseases that manifest as different forms. Adenomyosis may be described as diffuse adenomyosis, focal adenomyosis especially of the outer myometrium and cystic adenomyoma. Endometriosis has three phenotypes: superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SUP), ovarian endometrioma (OMA), and deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). These two diseases are closely linked, and it is now clear that adenomyosis can either arise on its own or coexist with endometriosis. There is a strong clinical relationship between endometriosis and adenomyosis according to their respective phenotypes. Various classifications are available to describe both diseases. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) and/or pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the first examination performed when endometriosis or adenomyosis are suspected. These two imaging techniques, used in a combination manner, allow accurate description of both endometriosis and adenomyosis, to assess the diagnosis and to improve clinical and surgical care. In this review, we described the different imaging aspects of endometriosis and adenomyosis to help the less experienced radiologist or gynecologist in the diagnosis and evaluation of those diseases.

A short anogenital distance on MRI is a marker of endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION

Could the anogenital distance (AGD) as assessed by MRI (MRI-AGD) be a diagnostic tool for endometriosis?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A short MRI-AGD is a strong diagnostic marker of endometriosis.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A short clinically assessed AGD (C-AGD) is associated with the presence of endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This study is a re-analysis of previously published data from a case-control study.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Women undergoing pelvic surgery from January 2018 to June 2019 and who had a preoperative pelvic MRI were included. C-AGD was measured at the beginning of the surgery by a different operator who was unaware of the endometriosis status. MRI-AGD was measured retrospectively by a senior radiologist who was blinded to the final diagnosis. Two measurements were made: from the posterior wall of the clitoris to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AC), and from the posterior wall of the vagina to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AF).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The study compared MRI-AGD of 67 women with endometriosis to 31 without endometriosis (controls). Average MRI-AGD-AF measurements were 13.3 mm (±3.9) and 21.2 mm (±5.4) in the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). Average MRI-AGD-AC measurements were 40.4 mm (±7.3) and 51.1 mm (±8.6) for the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). There was no difference of MRI-AGD in women with and without endometrioma (P = 0.21), or digestive involvement (P = 0.26). Moreover, MRI-AGD values were independent of the revised score of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Enzian score. The diagnosis of endometriosis was negatively associated with both the MRI-AGD-AF (β = -7.79, 95% CI (-9.88; -5.71), P < 0.001) and MRI-AGD-AC (β = -9.51 mm, 95% CI (-12.7; 6.24), P < 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Age (β = +0.31 mm, 95% CI (0.09; 0.53), P = 0.006) and BMI (β = +0.44 mm, 95% CI (0.17; 0.72), P = 0.001) were positively associated with the MRI-AGD-AC measurements in multivariable analysis. MRI-AGD-AF had an AUC of 0.869 (95% CI (0.79; 0.95)) and outperformed C-AGD. Using an optimal cut-off of 20 mm for MRI-AGD-AF, a sensitivity of 97.01% and a specificity of 70.97% were noted.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a retrospective analysis and no adolescents had been included.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study is consistent with previous works associating a short C-AGD with endometriosis and the absence of correlation with the disease phenotype. MRI-AGD is more accurate than C-AGD in this setting and could be evaluated in the MRI examination of patients with suspected endometriosis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

N/A.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The protocol was approved by the 'Groupe Nantais d'Ethique dans le Domaine de la Santé' and registered under reference 02651077.

MRI for the diagnosis and staging of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a national survey of BSGE accredited endometriosis centres and review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to establish the primary mode of imaging and MR protocols utilised in the preoperative staging of deeply infiltrating endometriosis in centres accredited by the British Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE).

METHODS

The lead consultant radiologist in each centre was invited to complete an online survey detailing their protocols.

RESULTS

Out of 49 centres, 32 (65%) responded to the survey. Two centres performed transvaginal ultrasound as the primary method for preoperative staging of deeply infiltrating endometriosis and the remainder performed MRI. 21/25 centres did not recommend a period of fasting prior to MRI and 22/25 administered hyoscine butylbromide. None of the centres routinely offered bowel preparation or recommended a specific pre-procedure diet. 21/25 centres did not time imaging according to the woman's menstrual cycle, and instructions regarding bladder filling were varied. Rectal and vaginal opacification methods were infrequently utilised. All centres preferentially performed MRI in the supine position - six used an abdominal strap and four could facilitate prone imaging. Just under half of centres used pelvic-phased array coils and three centres used gadolinium contrast agents routinely. All centres performed T1W with fat-suppression and T2W without fat-suppression sequences. There was significant variation relating to other MR sequences depending on the unit.

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant inconsistency between centres in terms of MR protocols, patient preparation and the sequences performed. Many practices were out of line with current published evidence.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Our survey demonstrates a need for evidence-based standardisation of imaging in BSGE accredited endometriosis centres.

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.

Recommendations for MRI technique in the evaluation of pelvic endometriosis: consensus statement from the Society of Abdominal Radiology endometriosis disease-focused panel

Endometriosis is a common entity causing chronic pain and infertility in women. The gold standard method for diagnosis is diagnostic laparoscopy, which is invasive and costly. MRI has shown promise in its ability to diagnose endometriosis and its efficacy for preoperative planning. The Society of Abdominal Radiology established a Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) to improve patient care for patients with endometriosis. In this article, the DFP performs a literature review and uses its own experience to provide technical recommendations on optimizing MRI Pelvis for the evaluation of endometriosis.

European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition of unknown aetiology that primarily affects women of reproductive age. The accepted first-line imaging modality is pelvic ultrasound. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly performed as an additional investigation in complex cases and for surgical planning. There is currently no international consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI protocols or reporting criteria. Our aim was to develop clinical guidelines for MRI evaluation of pelvic endometriosis based on literature evidence and consensus expert opinion. This work was performed by a group of radiologists from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), experts in gynaecological imaging and a gynaecologist expert in methodology. The group discussed indications for MRI, technical requirements, patient preparation, MRI protocols and criteria for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis on MRI. The expert panel proposed a final recommendation for each criterion using Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 levels of evidence.

KEY POINTS

• This report provides guidelines for MRI in endometriosis. • Minimal and optimal MRI acquisition protocols are provided. • Recommendations are proposed for patient preparation, best MRI sequences and reporting criteria.

Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic endometriosis

Endometriosis is common in women of reproductive age; it can cause pelvic pain and infertility. It is important to diagnose endometriosis and to thoroughly evaluate its extension, especially when surgical treatment is being considered. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with careful examination technique and interpretation enables more accurate and complete diagnosis and staging than ultrasonography, especially in cases of deep pelvic endometriosis. Furthermore, MRI can identify implants in sites that can be difficult to access in endoscopic or laparoscopic explorations. In this article, we describe the appropriate MRI protocol for the study of pelvic endometriosis and the MRI signs of pelvic organ involvement. It is necessary to know the subtle findings and to look for them so we can ensure that they are not overlooked. We describe clinical grading systems for endometriosis and review the diagnostic efficacy of MRI in comparison with other imaging techniques and surgery.

Overall Adiposity, Adipose Tissue Distribution, and Endometriosis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis has been associated with a lean body habitus. However, we do not understand whether endometriosis is also associated with other characteristics of adiposity, including adipose tissue distribution and amount of visceral adipose tissue (VAT; adipose tissue lining inner organs). Having these understandings may provide insights on how endometriosis develops-some of the physiological actions of adipose tissue differ depending on tissue amount and location and are related to proposed mechanisms of endometriosis development.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding overall adiposity, adipose tissue distribution and/or VAT, and endometriosis.

METHODS

We reviewed and synthesized studies indexed in PubMed and/or Web of Science. We included studies that had one or more measures of overall adiposity, adipose tissue distribution, and/or VAT and women with and without endometriosis for comparison. We summarized the findings and commented on the methods used and potential sources of bias.

RESULTS

Of 366 identified publications, 19 (5.2%) were eligible. Two additional publications were identified from reference lists. Current research included measures of overall adiposity (e.g., body figure drawings) or adipose tissue distribution (e.g., waist-to-hip ratio), but not VAT. The weight of evidence indicated that endometriosis was associated with low overall adiposity and with a preponderance of adipose tissue distributed below the waist (peripheral).

DISCUSSION

Endometriosis may be associated with being lean or having peripherally distributed adipose tissue. Well-designed studies with various sampling frameworks and precise measures of adiposity and endometriosis are needed to confirm associations between adiposity measures and endometriosis and delineate potential etiological mechanisms underlying endometriosis.

Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

About 10% of women of reproductive age suffer from endometriosis. Endometriosis is a costly chronic disease that causes pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy, the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, no non-invasive tests that can be used to accurately diagnose endometriosis are available in clinical practice. This is the first review of diagnostic test accuracy of imaging tests for endometriosis that uses Cochrane methods to provide an update on the rapidly expanding literature in this field.

OBJECTIVES

• To provide estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis and deeply infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) versus surgical diagnosis as a reference standard.• To describe performance of imaging tests for mapping of deep endometriotic lesions in the pelvis at specific anatomical sites.Imaging tests were evaluated as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and as triage tests that would assist decision making regarding diagnostic surgery for endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 20 April 2015: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDION, DARE, and PubMed. Searches were not restricted to a particular study design or language nor to specific publication dates. The search strategy incorporated words in the title, abstracts, text words across the record and medical subject headings (MeSH).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered published peer-reviewed cross-sectional studies and randomised controlled trials of any size that included prospectively recruited women of reproductive age suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: endometrioma, pelvic endometriosis, DIE or endometriotic lesions at specific intrapelvic anatomical locations. We included studies that compared the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more imaging modalities versus findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of data from each study. For each imaging test, data were classified as positive or negative for surgical detection of endometriosis, and sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated. If two or more tests were evaluated in the same cohort, each was considered as a separate data set. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity when sufficient data sets were available. Predetermined criteria for a clinically useful imaging test to replace diagnostic surgery included sensitivity ≥ 94% and specificity ≥ 79%. Criteria for triage tests were set at sensitivity ≥ 95% and specificity ≥ 50%, ruling out the diagnosis with a negative result (SnNout test - if sensitivity is high, a negative test rules out pathology) or at sensitivity ≥ 50% with specificity ≥ 95%, ruling in the diagnosis with a positive result (SpPin test - if specificity is high, a positive test rules in pathology).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 studies involving 4807 women: 13 studies evaluated pelvic endometriosis, 10 endometriomas and 15 DIE, and 33 studies addressed endometriosis at specific anatomical sites. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. The most studied modalities were transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with outcome measures commonly demonstrating diversity in diagnostic estimates; however, sources of heterogeneity could not be reliably determined. No imaging test met the criteria for a replacement or triage test for detecting pelvic endometriosis, albeit TVUS approached the criteria for a SpPin triage test. For endometrioma, TVUS (eight studies, 765 participants; sensitivity 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 0.99), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.92, 0.99)) qualified as a SpPin triage test and approached the criteria for a replacement and SnNout triage test, whereas MRI (three studies, 179 participants; sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.90, 1.00), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.86, 0.97)) met the criteria for a replacement and SnNout triage test and approached the criteria for a SpPin test. For DIE, TVUS (nine studies, 12 data sets, 934 participants; sensitivity 0.79 (95% CI 0.69, 0.89) and specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.88, 1.00)) approached the criteria for a SpPin triage test, and MRI (six studies, seven data sets, 266 participants; sensitivity 0.94 (95% CI 0.90, 0.97), specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.44, 1.00)) approached the criteria for a replacement and SnNout triage test. Other imaging tests assessed in small individual studies could not be statistically evaluated.TVUS met the criteria for a SpPin triage test in mapping DIE to uterosacral ligaments, rectovaginal septum, vaginal wall, pouch of Douglas (POD) and rectosigmoid. MRI met the criteria for a SpPin triage test for POD and vaginal and rectosigmoid endometriosis. Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) might qualify as a SpPin triage test for rectosigmoid involvement but could not be adequately assessed for other anatomical sites because heterogeneous data were scant. Multi-detector computerised tomography enema (MDCT-e) displayed the highest diagnostic performance for rectosigmoid and other bowel endometriosis and met the criteria for both SpPin and SnNout triage tests, but studies were too few to provide meaningful results.Diagnostic accuracies were higher for TVUS with bowel preparation (TVUS-BP) and rectal water contrast (RWC-TVS) and for 3.0TMRI than for conventional methods, although the paucity of studies precluded statistical evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the evaluated imaging modalities were able to detect overall pelvic endometriosis with enough accuracy that they would be suggested to replace surgery. Specifically for endometrioma, TVUS qualified as a SpPin triage test. MRI displayed sufficient accuracy to suggest utility as a replacement test, but the data were too scant to permit meaningful conclusions. TVUS could be used clinically to identify additional anatomical sites of DIE compared with MRI, thus facilitating preoperative planning. Rectosigmoid endometriosis was the only site that could be accurately mapped by using TVUS, TRUS, MRI or MDCT-e. Studies evaluating recent advances in imaging modalities such as TVUS-BP, RWC-TVS, 3.0TMRI and MDCT-e were observed to have high diagnostic accuracies but were too few to allow prudent evaluation of their diagnostic role. In view of the low quality of most of the included studies, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Future well-designed diagnostic studies undertaken to compare imaging tests for diagnostic test accuracy and costs are recommended.

Increased dose single-agent gemcitabine in platinum-taxane resistant metastatic ovarian cancer

CONCLUSION

In platinum–taxane resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we aimed to determine the effectiveness.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, patients afflicted with platinum–taxane resistant EOC and who were administered a 30-minute i.v. infusion of single-agent gemcitabine at a dose of 1,250 mg/m2 on the 1st, 8th and 15th days, every 28 days, were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients with platinum–taxane resistant EOC were included in the study. The overall survival (OS) was 48 months. The median survival after becoming platinum–taxane resistant was 16 months for the study population. Median time to progression (TTP) and median survival after becoming platinum–taxane resistant for patients who received second-line treatment were 3.3 months and 16 months, respectively; for patients who received third-line treatment with gemcitabine, these were 3.7 months and 19 months, respectively. Administration of gemcitabine as second- and third-line chemotherapy in platinum–taxane resistant EOC, provides similar TTP and OS outcomes (p = 0.4, p = 0.9) with a similar response and toxicity rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Second- and third-line gemcitabine at a dose of 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days as a 30-minute i.v. infusion in platinum–taxane resistant EOC is an effective treatment option with a tolerable and manageable toxicity.