Diagnostic Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Adenomyosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Review of Sonographic Diagnostic Criteria.
adenomyosis
diagnosis
magnetic resonance imaging
meta-analysis
systematic review
ultrasonography
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:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
revised:
16
12
2020
received:
15
10
2020
accepted:
02
01
2021
pubmed:
28
1
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
27
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aim to first systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and, second, to evaluate the accuracy of various sonographic diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis. A search of PubMed and Embase yielded 32 eligible studies. In diagnosing adenomyosis, the diagnostic performance of TVUS was found to be high and comparable to the performance of MRI. Of the eight sonographic criteria, only five were assessable. The best individual criterion was echogenic subendometrial lines and buds. Limited data exist for the various sonographic criteria, and further studies are required to compare their performance.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2289-2306Informations de copyright
© 2021 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.
Références
Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1989; 16:221-235.
Van den Bosch T, de Bruijn AM, de Leeuw RA, et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53:576-582.
Taran FA, Stewart EA, Brucker S. Adenomyosis: epidemiology, risk factors, clinical phenotype and surgical and interventional alternatives to hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013; 73:924-931.
Arnold LL, Ascher SM, Schruefer JJ, Simon JA. The nonsurgical diagnosis of adenomyosis. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86:461-465.
Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9:139-147.
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.
McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018; 319:388-396.
PROSPERO. University of York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2020. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:529-536.
Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58:882-893.
Reinhold C, Atri M, Mehio A, Zakarian R, Aldis AE, Bret PM. Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology 1995; 197:609-614.
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.
Kara Bozkurt D, Bozkurt M, Cil AS, Barut MU, Ersahin AA, Caliskan E. Concomitant use of transvaginal sonography and doppler indices improve diagnosis of adenomyosis. J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 37:888-895.
Dakhly DM, Abdel Moety GA, Saber W, Gad Allah SH, Hashem AT, Abdel Salam LO. Accuracy of hysteroscopic endomyometrial biopsy in diagnosis of adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23:364-371.
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.
Stoelinga B, Hehenkamp WJ, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. Real-time elastography for assessment of uterine disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43:218-226.
Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Goynumer G, Tutal E. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30:341-345.
Tellum T, Nygaard S, Skovholt EK, Qvigstad E, Lieng M. Development of a clinical prediction model for diagnosing adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2018; 110:957-64.e3.
Acar S, Millar E, Mitkova M, Mitkov V. Value of ultrasound shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Ultrasound. 2016; 24:205-213.
Abdel Hak AM. Accuracy of sonographic criteria for diagnosis of adenomyosis in perimenopausal women with menorrhagia. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 2010; 15:35-38.
Elkattan E, Omran E, Inany H. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and uterine artery Doppler in the prediction of adenomyosis. Middle East Fertility Soc J 2010; 15:73-78.
Sun YL, Wang CB, Lee CY, et al. Transvaginal sonographic criteria for the diagnosis of adenomyosis based on histopathologic correlation. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 49:40-44.
Bazot M, Darai 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.
Koçak İ, Yanık F, Üstün C. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Int J Gynecol Obst 1998; 62:293-294.
Vercellini P, Cortesi I, De Giorgi O, Merlo D, Carinelli SG, Crosignani PG. Transvaginal ultrasonography versus uterine needle biopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:2884-2887.
Atzori E, Tronci C, Sionis L. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1996; 42:39-41.
Hirai M, Shibata K, Sagai H, Sekiya S, Goldberg BB. Transvaginal pulsed and color Doppler sonography for the evaluation of adenomyosis. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14:529-532.
Brosens JJ, de Souza NM, Barker FG, Paraschos T, Winston RM. Endovaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis uteri: identifying the predictive characteristics. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102:471-474.
Naftalin J, Hoo W, Nunes N, Holland T, Mavrelos D, Jurkovic D. Association between ultrasound features of adenomyosis and severity of menstrual pain. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47:779-783.
Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Arcaini L, Zanotti F, Carinelli S. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 1992; 58:94-97.
Siedler D, Laing FC, Jeffrey RB Jr, Wing VW. Uterine adenomyosis. A difficult sonographic diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med 1987; 6:345-349.
Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio AR, Chapman WB, Bret PM. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in-vitro study. Radiology 2000; 215:783-790.
Botsis D, Kassanos D, Antoniou G, Pyrgiotis E, Karakitsos P, Kalogirou D. Adenomyoma and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1998; 26:21-25.
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.
Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Albrecht L, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis of adenomyosis: histologic correlation with ultrasound targeted biopsies of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20:803-810.
Rasmussen CK, Hansen ES, Ernst E, Dueholm M. Two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for diagnosis of adenomyosis of the inner myometrium. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38:750-760.
Zannoni L, Ambrosio M, Raimondo D, et al. Question mark sign and transvaginal ultrasound uterine tenderness for the diagnosis of Adenomyosis: a prospective validation. J Ultrasound Med 2020; 39:1405-1412.
Tellum T, Matic GV, Dormagen JB, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis with MRI: a prospective study revisiting the junctional zone thickness cutoff of 12 mm as a diagnostic marker. Eur Radiol 2019; 29:6971-6981.
Bazot M, Darai E, Clement de Givry S, Boudghene F, Uzan S, Le Blanche AF. Fast breath-hold T2-weighted MR imaging reduces interobserver variability in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:1291-1296.
Stamatopoulos CP, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF, et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of adenomyosis and myomas of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012; 19:620-626.
Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2427-2433.
Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:588-594.
Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89:1374-1384.
Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrao MS, Kho RM. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of Adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25:257-264.
Meredith SM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:107.e1-107.e6.
Hricak H, Alpers C, Crooks LE, Sheldon PE. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983; 141:1119-1128.
Lee JK, Gersell DJ, Balfe DM, Worthington JL, Picus D, Gapp G. The uterus: in vitro MR-anatomic correlation of normal and abnormal specimens. Radiology 1985; 157:175-179.
McCarthy S, Tauber C, Gore J. Female pelvic anatomy: MR assessment of variations during the menstrual cycle and with use of oral contraceptives. Radiology 1986; 160:119-123.
Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, et al. Uterine junctional zone: correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 179:409-413.
Scoutt LM, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, McCauley TR, McCarthy SM. Junctional zone of the uterus: correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology 1991; 179:403-407.
Scoutt LM, McCauley TR, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, McCarthy SM. Zonal anatomy of the cervix: correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology 1993; 186:159-162.
Brosens JJ, de Souza NM, Barker FG. Uterine junctional zone: function and disease. Lancet 1995; 346:558-560.
Bazot M, Darai E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2018; 109:389-397.
Tessarolo M, Bonino L, Camanni M, Deltetto F. Elastosonography: a possible new tool for diagnosis of adenomyosis? Eur Radiol 2011; 21:1546-1552.
Alabiso G, Alio L, Arena S, et al. Adenomyosis: what the patient needs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23:476-488.
Pinzauti S, Lazzeri L, Tosti C, et al. Transvaginal sonographic features of diffuse adenomyosis in 18-30-year-old nulligravid women without endometriosis: association with symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46:730-736.