Objective measures of adenomyosis on MRI and their diagnostic accuracy-a systematic review & meta-analysis.
adenomyosis
diagnosis
endometriosis
magnetic resonance imaging
non-invasive imaging
uterus
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
revised:
15
02
2021
received:
11
09
2020
accepted:
02
03
2021
pubmed:
9
3
2021
medline:
31
8
2021
entrez:
8
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of adenomyosis is considered the most accurate non-invasive technique, but remains subjective, with no consensus on which diagnostic parameters are most accurate. We aimed to systematically review the literature on how adenomyosis can be objectively quantified on MRI in a scoping manner, to review the diagnostic performance of these characteristics compared with histopathological diagnosis, and to summarize correlations between measures of adenomyosis on MRI and clinical outcomes. We searched databases Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane for relevant literature up to April 2020 according to PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that objectively assessed adenomyosis on MRI, and separately assessed studies investigating the diagnostic performance of MRI vs histopathology for inclusion in a meta-analysis. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for risk of bias, with many studies showing an unclear or high risk of bias. Eighty studies were included, of which 14 assessed the diagnostic performance of individual MRI parameters, with four included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Common MRI parameters were: junctional zone (JZ) characteristics, such as maximum JZ thickness-pooled sensitivity 71.6% (95% CI 46.0%-88.2%), specificity 85.5% (52.3%-97.0%); JZ differential-pooled sensitivity 58.9% (95% CI 44.3%-72.1%), specificity 83.2% (95% CI 71.3%-90.8%); and JZ to myometrial ratio-pooled sensitivity 63.3% (95% CI 51.9%-73.4%), specificity 79.4% (95% CI 42.0%-95.4%); adenomyosis lesion size, uterine morphology (pooled sensitivity 42.9% (95% CI 15.9%-74.9%), specificity 87.7%, (95% CI 37.9-98.8) and changes in signal intensity-eg, presence of myometrium cysts; pooled 59.6% (95% CI 41.6%-75.4%) and specificity of 96.1% (95% CI 80.7%-99.3%). Other MRI parameters have been used for adenomyosis diagnosis, but their diagnostic performance is unknown. Few studies attempted to correlate adenomyosis MRI phenotype to clinical outcomes. A wide range of objective parameters for adenomyosis exist on MRI; however, in many cases their individual diagnostic performance remains uncertain. JZ characteristics remain the most widely used and investigated with acceptable diagnostic accuracy. Specific research is needed into how these objective measures of adenomyosis can be correlated to clinical outcomes.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1377-1391Informations de copyright
© 2021 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Horton J, Sterrenburg M, Lane S, Maheshwari A, Li TC, Cheong Y. Reproductive, obstetric, and perinatal outcomes of women with adenomyosis and endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:592-632.
Bruun MR, Arendt LH, Forman A, Ramlau-Hansen CH. Endometriosis and adenomyosis are associated with increased risk of preterm delivery and a small-for-gestational-age child: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:1073-1090.
Vlahos NF, Theodoridis TD, Partsinevelos GA. Myomas and Adenomyosis: Impact on Reproductive Outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:5926470.
Tellum T, Nygaard S, Lieng M. Noninvasive Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: A Structured Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy in Imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(408-418).e3
Munro MG. Classification and Reporting Systems for Adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:296-308.
Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: Usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics. 2011;31:99-115.
Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, Alves J, Setúbal A, Guerra A. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:549-556.
Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J, et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: From normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:1206-1213.
Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:389-397.
Kang S, Turner DA, Foster GS, Rapoport MI, Spencer SA, Wang JZ. Adenomyosis: specificity of 5 mm as the maximum normal uterine junctional zone thickness in MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:1145-1150.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529-536.
Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ. Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:81.
Moghadam R, Lathi RB, Shahmohamady B, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between leiomyoma and adenomyosis. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2006;10:216-219.
Hamimi A. What are the most reliable signs for the radiologic diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis? An ultrasound and MRI prospective. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2015;46:1349-1355.
Badawy ME, Elkholi DGEY, Sherif MF, Hefedah MAE. Magnetic resonance imaging of uterovaginal lesions associated with female infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2015;20:27-36.
Tian T, Zhang G-F, Zhang H, Liu H. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating uterine fibroid from focal adenomyosis: initial results. Springerplus. 2016;5:9.
Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, et al. Adenomyosis: Prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;190:803-806.
Phillips DR, Nathanson HG, Milim SJ, Haselkorn JS. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyomata. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3:245-250.
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.
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.
Imaoka I, Ascher SM, Sugimura K, et al. MR imaging of diffuse adenomyosis changes after GnRH analog therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15:285-290.
Keserci B, Duc NM. Magnetic resonance imaging features influencing high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of adenomyosis with a nonperfused volume ratio of ≥90% as a measure of clinical treatment success: retrospective multivariate analysis. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018;35:626-636.
Larsen SB, Lundorf E, Forman A, Dueholm M. Adenomyosis and junctional zone changes in patients with endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;157:206-211.
Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, et al. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291:917-932.
Gong C, Yang B, Shi Y, et al. Factors influencing the ablative efficiency of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for adenomyosis: A retrospective study. Int J Hyperthermia. 2016;32:496-503.
Gong C, Setzen R, Liu Z, et al. High intensity focused ultrasound treatment of adenomyosis: The relationship between the features of magnetic resonance imaging on T2 weighted images and the therapeutic efficacy. Eur J Radiol. 2017;89:117-122.
Hricak H, Finck S, Honda G, Goranson H. MR imaging in the evaluation of benign uterine masses: Value of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced T1-weighted images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:1043-1050.
Jung DC, Kim MD, Oh YT, Won JY, Lee DY. Prediction of early response to uterine arterial embolisation of adenomyosis: Value of T2 signal intensity ratio of adenomyosis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2044-2049.
Keserci B, Duc NM. The role of T1 perfusion-based classification in predicting the outcome of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of adenomyosis. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018;34:306-314.
Yang Q, Zhang LH, Su J, Liu J. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of uterine adenomyosis and leiomyoma. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79:e47-51.
Jha RC, Zanello PA, Ascher SM, Rajan S. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of adenomyosis and fibroids of the uterus. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39:562-569.
Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:947-953.
Kilickesmez O, Bayramoglu S, Inci E, Cimilli T, Kayhan A. Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and diseased uterine zones. Acta radiol. 2009;50:340-347.
Kissler S, Zangos S, Kohl J, et al. Duration of dysmenorrhoea and extent of adenomyosis visualised by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;137:204-209.
Kunz G, Herbertz M, Beil D, Huppert P, Leyendecker G. Adenomyosis as a disorder of the early and late human reproductive period. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15:681-685.
Parker JD, Leondires M, Sinaii N, Premkumar A, Nieman LK, Stratton P. Persistence of dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pain after optimal endometriosis surgery may indicate adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:711-715.
Smeets AJ, Nijenhuis RJ, Boekkooi PF, Vervest HAM, Van Rooij WJ, Lohle PNM. Long-term follow-up of uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:815-819.
Froeling V, Scheurig-Muenkler C, Hamm B, Kroencke TJ. Uterine artery embolization to treat uterine adenomyosis with or without uterine leiomyomata: Results of symptom control and health-related quality of life 40 months after treatment. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:523-529.
Fukunishi H, Funaki K, Sawada K, Yamaguchi K, Maeda T, Kaji Y. Early results of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery of adenomyosis: Analysis of 20 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:571-579.
Nijenhuis RJ, Smeets AJ, Morpurgo M, et al. Uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic adenomyosis with polyzene F-coated hydrogel microspheres: three-year clinical follow-up using UFS-QoL questionnaire. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:65-71.
Kissler S, Hamscho N, Zangos S, et al. Uterotubal transport disorder in adenomyosis and endometriosis-a cause for infertility. BJOG. 2006;113(8):902-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00970.x
Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Noe M, Kissler S, Leyendecker G. Adenomyosis in endometriosis - Prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2309-2316.
Marcellin L, Santulli P, Bortolato S, et al. Anterior Focal Adenomyosis and Bladder Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Is There a Link? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:896-901.
Chapron C, Tosti C, Marcellin L, et al. Relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of adenomyosis and endometriosis phenotypes. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1393-1401.
Jha RC, Takahama J, Imaoka I, et al. Adenomyosis: MRI of the uterus treated with uterine artery embolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:851-856.
Park Y, Kim MD, Jung DC, et al. Can measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient before treatment predict the response to uterine artery embolization for adenomyosis? Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1303-1309.
Kim KA, Yoon SW, Lee C, Seong SJ, Yoon BS, Park H. Short-term results of magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery for patients with adenomyosis: Symptomatic relief and pain reduction. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1152-1155.
Kobayashi H, Matsubara S. A Classification Proposal for Adenomyosis Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2020;85:118-126.
Gordts S, Brosens JJ, Fusi L, Benagiano G, Brosens I. Uterine adenomyosis: A need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:244-248.
Meylaerts LJ, Wijnen L, Grieten M, Palmers Y, Ombelet W, Vandersteen M. Junctional zone thickness in young nulliparous women according to menstrual cycle and hormonal contraception use. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34:212-220.
Maubon A, Faury A, Kapella M, Pouquet M, Piver P. Uterine junctional zone at magnetic resonance imaging: A predictor of in vitro fertilization implantation failure. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36:611-618.
Thum MY, Saso S, Clancy N, Smith JR. Imaging of organ viability during uterine transplantation surgery. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:34.
He Y, Ding N, Li Y, et al. 3-T diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of normal uterus in young and middle-aged females during the menstrual cycle: Evaluation of the cyclic changes of fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Br J Radiol. 2015;88:20150043.
Nakagawa M, Nakaura T, Namimoto T, et al. A multiparametric MRI-based machine learning to distinguish between uterine sarcoma and benign leiomyoma: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Radiol. 2019;74:167.e1-167.e7.
Fornazari VAV, Vayego SA, Szejnfeld D, Szejnfeld J, Goldman SM. Functional magnetic resonance imaging for clinical evaluation of uterine contractility. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2018;16(1):eMD3863.
Nakashima A, Komesu I, Sakumoto T, et al. Study of uterine kinetics in nonpregnant women using cine-mode magnetic resonance imaging. Reprod Med Biol. 2019;18:370-377.
Kara Bozkurt D, Bozkurt M, Nazli MA, Mutlu IN, Kilickesmez O. Diffusion-weighted and diffusion-tensor imaging of normal and diseased uterus. World J Radiol. 2015;7:149-156.
Porpora MG, Vinci V, De Vito C, et al. The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Predicting Pain Related to Endometriosis: A Preliminary Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:661-669.