Can Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI Contribute to Improved Assessment of Rectosigmoid Involvement in Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis?
Endometriosis
compressed-sensing
deep infiltrating endometriosis
dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
mushroom cap sign
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
19
04
2021
revised:
05
05
2021
accepted:
06
05
2021
entrez:
28
6
2021
pubmed:
29
6
2021
medline:
1
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine whether a prototypical compressed-sensing volume-interpolated breath-hold (csVIBE) provides diagnostic value in detecting rectosigmoid infiltration in deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). csVIBE was employed in 151 women undergoing pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, of whom 43 had undergone surgery for suspected endometriosis. The accuracy of T2-weighted BLADE and BLADE/csVIBE, additional diagnostic value of csVIBE, and diagnostic confidence were rated by two readers. Additionally, the presence of the "mushroom cap sign" was assessed on BLADE and csVIBE. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of BLADE and BLADE/csVIBE were not significantly different between Readers A and B. For both readers, the confidence in the diagnosis increased with csVIBE, but this increase in the odds ratio was not significant for both readers. Both readers preferred csVIBE over BLADE with regard to detection of the "mushroom cap sign." csVIBE may provide a diagnostic benefit for surgical strategy selection through better delineation of the "mushroom cap sign."
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether a prototypical compressed-sensing volume-interpolated breath-hold (csVIBE) provides diagnostic value in detecting rectosigmoid infiltration in deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
csVIBE was employed in 151 women undergoing pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, of whom 43 had undergone surgery for suspected endometriosis. The accuracy of T2-weighted BLADE and BLADE/csVIBE, additional diagnostic value of csVIBE, and diagnostic confidence were rated by two readers. Additionally, the presence of the "mushroom cap sign" was assessed on BLADE and csVIBE.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of BLADE and BLADE/csVIBE were not significantly different between Readers A and B. For both readers, the confidence in the diagnosis increased with csVIBE, but this increase in the odds ratio was not significant for both readers. Both readers preferred csVIBE over BLADE with regard to detection of the "mushroom cap sign."
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
csVIBE may provide a diagnostic benefit for surgical strategy selection through better delineation of the "mushroom cap sign."
Identifiants
pubmed: 34182500
pii: 35/4/2217
doi: 10.21873/invivo.12494
pmc: PMC8286483
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2217-2226Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:437962
pubmed: 24812616
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Apr;84(4):568-74
pubmed: 25604906
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jul;27(7):2765-2775
pubmed: 27921160
Acta Neuropathol. 2018 Jul;136(1):127-138
pubmed: 29748901
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 9;14(4):e0214842
pubmed: 30964888
Abdom Imaging. 2007 Jul-Aug;32(4):451-6
pubmed: 17420957
Hum Reprod. 2007 May;22(5):1457-63
pubmed: 17303630
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994 Sep 30;734:333-41
pubmed: 7978935
Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):126-34
pubmed: 19584256
In Vivo. 2009 May-Jun;23(3):459-64
pubmed: 19454514
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994 Nov;2(1):43-7
pubmed: 9050532
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Jun;81(6):1381-7
pubmed: 21497034
Eur Radiol. 2011 Jul;21(7):1553-63
pubmed: 21336537
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;60(4):711-727
pubmed: 28990985
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019 Aug;9(8):1470-1474
pubmed: 31559176
Invest Radiol. 2015 Dec;50(12):805-10
pubmed: 26523910
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Sep - Oct;26(6):1016-1025
pubmed: 30849475
Hum Reprod. 2007 Dec;22(12):3092-7
pubmed: 17947378
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jun;27(6):2248-2257
pubmed: 27770228
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2020 Nov;28(4):497-507
pubmed: 33040991
Biostatistics. 2009 Jul;10(3):405-8
pubmed: 19535325
Invest Radiol. 2019 Nov;54(11):728-736
pubmed: 31503080
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;24(2):175-9
pubmed: 15287056
In Vivo. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(6):811-5
pubmed: 19181012
Abdom Imaging. 2010 Aug;35(4):414-21
pubmed: 19568808
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Dec;80(3):e331-9
pubmed: 21216125
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Jul;28(1):121-7
pubmed: 18581401
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Sep;106(3):198-201
pubmed: 19467541
Radiology. 1991 Jul;180(1):73-8
pubmed: 2052726
Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017 Mar;6(1):34-41
pubmed: 29276652
Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):379-89
pubmed: 15205479
Hum Reprod. 2014 Mar;29(3):400-12
pubmed: 24435778
Fertil Steril. 2005 Feb;83(2):442-7
pubmed: 15705388
Abdom Imaging. 2010 Dec;35(6):726-31
pubmed: 20820774
Acta Radiol. 2021 May;62(5):695-704
pubmed: 32600068
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Nov;43(11):3201-3203
pubmed: 29619523
Eur Radiol. 2011 Mar;21(3):468-73
pubmed: 21113597