Question Mark Sign and Transvaginal Ultrasound Uterine Tenderness for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: A Prospective Validation.
accuracy
adenomyosis
pelvic pain
question mark sign
transvaginal ultrasound
ultrasound
Journal
Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
ISSN: 1550-9613
Titre abrégé: J Ultrasound Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8211547
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
16
07
2019
revised:
10
01
2020
accepted:
12
01
2020
pubmed:
8
2
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
8
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the classic ultrasound (US) signs of adenomyosis, the question mark sign and transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) uterine tenderness, in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. This was a prospective study including 78 patients waiting for hysterectomy for uterine benign diseases and undergoing preoperative US examinations to evaluate all criteria for US diagnosis of adenomyosis as reported by the consensus statement of the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment group. A US diagnosis of adenomyosis was made in the presence of 2 or more Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment features. Moreover, the question mark sign and TVUS uterine tenderness were evaluated. Ultrasound features were compared with the histologic examination, which was considered the reference standard for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. The Cohen κ coefficient was used to measure the accordance between US and histologic results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of each US feature were calculated. The prevalence of adenomyosis in the sample was 33.3%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of TVUS in the diagnosis of adenomyosis were 77%, 96%, 91%, 89%, and 90%, respectively. Myometrial heterogeneity was the most frequently encountered feature (100%) but showed low specificity (7%). The question mark sign and TVUS uterine tenderness showed sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 41%, 96%, 83%, 77%, and 69% and 69%, 65%, 66%, 81%, and 67%. The question mark sign and TVUS uterine tenderness are useful tools for the diagnosis of adenomyosis.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1405-1412Informations de copyright
© 2020 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.
Références
Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Holland T, Jurkovic D. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:3432-3439.
Di Donato N, Montanari G, Benfenati A, et al. Prevalence of adenomyosis in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 181:289-293.
Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrão MS, Kho RM. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25:257-264.
Sharma K, Bora MK, Venkatesh BP, et al. Role of 3D ultrasound and Doppler in differentiating clinically suspected cases of leiomyoma and adenomyosis of uterus. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9:QC08-QC12.
Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20:511-521.
Abbott JA. Adenomyosis and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A): pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 40:68-81.
Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sørensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:588-594.
Bazot M, Cortez A, Daraï E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2427-2433.
Tahlan A, Nanda A, Mohan H. Uterine adenomyoma: a clinicopathologic review of 26 cases and a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2006; 25:361-365.
Graziano A, Lo Monte G, Piva I, et al. Diagnostic findings in adenomyosis: a pictorial review on the major concerns. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19:1146-1154.
Shwayder J, Sakhel K. Imaging for uterine myomas and adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21:362-376.
Alabiso G, Alio L, Arena S, et al. Adenomyosis: what the patient needs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23:476-488.
Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46:284-298.
Di Donato N, Bertoldo V, Montanari G, Zannoni L, Caprara G, Seracchioli R. Question mark form of uterus: a simple sonographic sign associated with the presence of adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46:126-127.
Di Donato N, Seracchioli R. How to evaluate adenomyosis in patients affected by endometriosis? Minim Invasive Surg 2014; 2014:507230.
Guerriero S, Condous G, van den Bosch T, et al. 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 Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48:318-332.
Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Mascilini F, Timmerman D. Dynamic and interactive gynecological ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34:225-229.
Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, et al. Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37:471-479.
Drăghici IM, Drăghici L, Cojocaru M, Gorgan CL, Vrabie CD. The immunoprofile of interstitial Cajal cells within adenomyosis/endometriosis lesions. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2015; 56:133-138.
Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Göynümer G, Tutal E. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30:341-345.
Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1996; 199:151-158.
Atzori E, Tronci C, Sionis L. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1996; 42:39-41.
Bazot M, Daraï E, Rouger J, Detchev R, Cortez A, Uzan S. Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20:605-611.
Benson RC, Sneeden VD. Adenomyosis: a reappraisal of symptomatology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1958; 76:1044-1061.
Bird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus: revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972; 112:583-593.
Emge LA. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus: its historical past and its present state of recognition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1962; 83:1541-1563.
Parazzini F, Vercellini P, Panazza S, Chatenoud L, Oldani S, Crosignani PG. Risk factors for adenomyosis. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1275-1279.
Bergholt T, Eriksen L, Berendt N, Jacobsen M, Hertz JB. Prevalence and risk factors of adenomyosis at hysterectomy. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2418-2421.
Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, Brockwell SE, Schocken M, Johnston JM. Adenomyosis: a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril 2009; 91:201-206.
Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1989; 16:221-235.
Vercellini P, Parazzini F, Oldani S, Panazza S, Bramante T, Crosignani PG. Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: a study on frequency distribution and patient characteristics. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:1160-1162.