2
|
Guerriero S, Alcázar JL, Pascual MA, Ajossa S, Perniciano M, Piras A, Mais V, Piras B, Schirru F, Benedetto MG, Saba L. Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Comparison Between 2-Dimensional Ultrasonography (US), 3-Dimensional US, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE 2018; 37:1511-1521. [PMID: 29193230 DOI: 10.1002/jum.14496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2017] [Revised: 09/05/2017] [Accepted: 09/08/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) transvaginal ultrasonography (US) in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for identification of deep infiltrating endometriosis. METHODS In this prospective observational study, 159 premenopausal women who underwent surgery for a clinical suspicion of deep infiltrating endometriosis were prospectively enrolled. All women underwent 2DUS, 3DUS, and MRI. The following 3 locations of deep endometriosis were considered: (1) intestinal; (2) other posterior lesions (retrocervical septum, rectovaginal septum, uterosacral ligaments, and vaginal fornix); and (3) anterior. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 2D and 3D transvaginal US in comparison with MRI were determined. RESULTS Intestinal deep infiltrating endometriosis was identified by 2DUS in 56 of 66 patients, by 3DUS in 59 of 66, and by MRI in 61 of 66. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed optimal results for 2DUS, 3DUS, and MRI (areas under the curve, 0.86, 0.915, and 0.935, respectively) with a statistically significant difference between 2DUS and MRI (P = .0103), even when the 95% confidence interval showed an overlap. Other posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis was identified by 2DUS in 55 of 75 patients, by 3DUS in 65 of 75, and by MRI in 66 of 75. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed very good results for 2DUS, 3DUS, and MRI (areas under the curve, 0.801, 0.838, and 0.857) with no statistically significant differences. In the 12 women with deep infiltrating endometriosis in the anterior location, the nodules were correctly identified by 2DUS in 3 of 12 patients, by 3DUS in 5 of 12, and by MRI in 6 of 12. CONCLUSIONS Our results seem to suggest that there is a statistically significant difference between 2DUS and MRI for the intestinal location of deep infiltrating endometriosis, whereas no differences were found among the techniques for the other locations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Guerriero
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Juan Luis Alcázar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Maria Angela Pascual
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproduction, Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Silvia Ajossa
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Maura Perniciano
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Alba Piras
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Valerio Mais
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Bruno Piras
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Federica Schirru
- Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Melis Gian Benedetto
- Department of Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| | - Luca Saba
- Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
[Performances and place of sonography in the diagnostic of endometriosis: CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 46:185-199. [PMID: 29544709 DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.02.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Endometriosis is difficult to diagnose clinically. Transvaginal sonography (TVS) is a procedure that is known to be operator-dependent, which mean that published evidences has to be balanced with the level of the sonographer that produced the data. The objective of this publication was to assess the performances of the sonography in the diagnosis of endometriosis in order to establish the French national recommendations. We searched the MEDLINE database for publication from January 2000 to September 2017 using keywords associated with endometriosis and sonography. Eighty-four trial and reviews published in English or French were included. Ovarian endometrioma can usually be diagnosed by a non-expert sonographer, especially when its aspect is typical. In case of an ovarian cyst with atypical presentation, it is recommended to control the sonography by a referent or to perform an MRI. In menopaused women, any ovarian cyst should be considered as a cancer until proven otherwise. In the diagnosis of posterior deep invasive endometriosis (DIE), TVS with sensitivity and specificity of 96 and 99% respectively, seems at least equivalent if not superior to MRI. However, these performances are related to expert sonographers. To reach sufficient efficiency in posterior DIE, the estimated learning curve for a sonographer is 44 cases. When posterior DIE is suspected, we recommend proposing a TVS "performed by an expert" or a MRI "at least interpreted by an expert". In anterior DIE, TVS has a good specificity (100%), but its sensitivity is poor in the literature (64%). TVS is therefore not able to eliminate the diagnosis. However a renal ultrasound should be proposed each time a urinary endometriosis is confirmed, and should be considered whenever posterior DIE is diagnosed especially the lesion is superior to 3cm.
Collapse
|
5
|
Guerriero S, Condous G, van den Bosch T, Valentin L, Leone FPG, Van Schoubroeck D, Exacoustos C, Installé AJF, Martins WP, Abrao MS, Hudelist G, Bazot M, Alcazar JL, Gonçalves MO, Pascual MA, Ajossa S, Savelli L, Dunham R, Reid S, Menakaya U, Bourne T, Ferrero S, Leon M, Bignardi T, Holland T, Jurkovic D, Benacerraf B, Osuga Y, Somigliana E, Timmerman D. Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2016; 48:318-332. [PMID: 27349699 DOI: 10.1002/uog.15955] [Citation(s) in RCA: 434] [Impact Index Per Article: 54.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2015] [Revised: 04/11/2016] [Accepted: 04/25/2016] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
The IDEA (International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group) statement is a consensus opinion on terms, definitions and measurements that may be used to describe the sonographic features of the different phenotypes of endometriosis. Currently, it is difficult to compare results between published studies because authors use different terms when describing the same structures and anatomical locations. We hope that the terms and definitions suggested herein will be adopted in centers around the world. This would result in consistent use of nomenclature when describing the ultrasound location and extent of endometriosis. We believe that the standardization of terminology will allow meaningful comparisons between future studies in women with an ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and should facilitate multicenter research. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Guerriero
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy
| | - G Condous
- Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy & Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia
| | - T van den Bosch
- Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tienen Regional Hospital, Tienen, Belgium
| | - L Valentin
- Lund University, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - F P G Leone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Sciences Institute L. Sacco, Milan, Italy
| | - D Van Schoubroeck
- Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tienen Regional Hospital, Tienen, Belgium
| | - C Exacoustos
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rome 'Tor Vergata', Rome, Italy and Ospedale Generale S. Giovanni Calibita Fatebene Fratelli, Rome, Italy
| | - A J F Installé
- KU Leuven, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS, Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, Leuven, Belgium and iMinds Medical IT, Leuven, Belgium
| | - W P Martins
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - M S Abrao
- Endometriosis Division, Obstetrics and Gynecological Department, Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - G Hudelist
- Hospital St John of God Johannes, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Bazot
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
| | - J L Alcazar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - M O Gonçalves
- Clinica Medicina da Mulher and RDO Medicina Diagnóstica, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - M A Pascual
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S Ajossa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy
| | - L Savelli
- Gynecology and Early Pregnancy Ultrasound Unit, S. Orsola - Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - R Dunham
- Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - S Reid
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - U Menakaya
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Calvary Public Hospital & JUNIC Specialist Imaging & Women's Center, Canberra, Australia
| | - T Bourne
- Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - S Ferrero
- Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS AOU San Martino - IST, Genova, Italy and Department of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DiNOGMI), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - M Leon
- Ultrasound Unit, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Clinica Indisa, Santiago, Chile
| | - T Bignardi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda, Ospedaliera Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milan, Italy
| | - T Holland
- Institute for Women's Health, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - D Jurkovic
- Institute for Women's Health, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B Benacerraf
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Y Osuga
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - E Somigliana
- Fondazione Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - D Timmerman
- Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tienen Regional Hospital, Tienen, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PMM, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Hull ML. Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2:CD009591. [PMID: 26919512 PMCID: PMC7100540 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009591.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 113] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vicki Nisenblat
- The University of AdelaideDiscipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Robinson Research InstituteLevel 6, Medical School North,Frome RdAdelaideSAAustralia5005
| | - Patrick MM Bossuyt
- Academic Medical Center, University of AmsterdamDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and BioinformaticsRoom J1b‐217, PO Box 22700AmsterdamNetherlands1100 DE
| | - Cindy Farquhar
- University of AucklandDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyFMHS Park RoadGraftonAucklandNew Zealand1003
| | - Neil Johnson
- The University of AdelaideDiscipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Robinson Research InstituteLevel 6, Medical School North,Frome RdAdelaideSAAustralia5005
| | - M Louise Hull
- The University of AdelaideDiscipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Robinson Research InstituteLevel 6, Medical School North,Frome RdAdelaideSAAustralia5005
| | | |
Collapse
|