Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure.
Delphi technique
adenomyosis
consensus
ultrasonography
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
18
08
2021
received:
18
02
2021
accepted:
16
09
2021
pubmed:
30
9
2021
medline:
7
7
2022
entrez:
29
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate whether the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis need to be better defined and, if deemed necessary, to reach consensus on the updated definitions. A modified Delphi procedure was performed among European gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis. To identify MUSA features that might need revision, 15 two-dimensional (2D) video recordings (four recordings also included three-dimensional (3D) still images) of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examinations of the uterus were presented in the first Delphi round (online questionnaire). Experts were asked to confirm or refute the presence of each of the nine MUSA features of adenomyosis (described in the original MUSA consensus statement) in each of the 15 videoclips and to provide comments. In the second Delphi round (online questionnaire), the results of the first round and suggestions for revision of MUSA features were shared with the experts before they were asked to assess a new set of 2D and 3D still images of TVS examinations and to provide feedback on the proposed revisions. A third Delphi round (virtual group meeting) was conducted to discuss and reach final consensus on revised definitions of MUSA features. Consensus was predefined as at least 66.7% agreement between experts. Of 18 invited experts, 16 agreed to participate in the Delphi procedure. Eleven experts completed and four experts partly finished the first round. The experts identified a need for more detailed definitions of some MUSA features. They recommended use of 3D ultrasound to optimize visualization of the junctional zone. Fifteen experts participated in the second round and reached consensus on the presence or absence of ultrasound features of adenomyosis in most of the still images. Consensus was reached for all revised definitions except those for subendometrial lines and buds and interrupted junctional zone. Thirteen experts joined the online meeting, in which they discussed and agreed on final revisions of the MUSA definitions. There was consensus on the need to distinguish between direct features of adenomyosis, i.e. features indicating presence of ectopic endometrial tissue in the myometrium, and indirect features, i.e. features reflecting changes in the myometrium secondary to presence of endometrial tissue in the myometrium. Myometrial cysts, hyperechogenic islands and echogenic subendometrial lines and buds were classified unanimously as direct features of adenomyosis. Globular uterus, asymmetrical myometrial thickening, fan-shaped shadowing, translesional vascularity, irregular junctional zone and interrupted junctional zone were classified as indirect features of adenomyosis. Consensus between gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis was achieved regarding revised definitions of the MUSA features of adenomyosis and on the classification of MUSA features as direct or indirect signs of adenomyosis. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34587658
doi: 10.1002/uog.24786
pmc: PMC9328356
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118-131Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 May;38(5):750-760
pubmed: 30792048
Hum Reprod Update. 2020 Apr 15;26(3):392-411
pubmed: 32097456
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;20(6):605-11
pubmed: 12493051
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;37(4):471-9
pubmed: 21433167
Hum Reprod. 2014 Mar;29(3):473-9
pubmed: 24408315
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Mar;38(3):657-666
pubmed: 30182497
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Dec;46(6):730-6
pubmed: 25728241
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 May;196(5):1206-13
pubmed: 21512093
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9
pubmed: 24581294
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Nov-Dec;20(6):803-10
pubmed: 24183272
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Sep;30(3):341-5
pubmed: 17659649
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88
pubmed: 9561895
Hum Reprod. 2012 Dec;27(12):3432-9
pubmed: 23001775
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):408-418.e3
pubmed: 31712162
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Sep;46(3):284-98
pubmed: 25652685
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):296-308
pubmed: 31785418
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;49(1):40-4
pubmed: 20466291
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):267
pubmed: 31610319
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;47(6):779-83
pubmed: 26499878
Med Teach. 2005 Nov;27(7):639-43
pubmed: 16332558
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Oct;38(10):2673-2683
pubmed: 30801764
Fertil Steril. 2018 Mar;109(3):389-397
pubmed: 29566851
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;53(5):576-582
pubmed: 29790217
Int J Obes (Lond). 2019 Dec;43(12):2573-2586
pubmed: 30655580
Fertil Steril. 2018 Oct;110(5):957-964.e3
pubmed: 30316443
Hum Reprod Update. 1998 Jul-Aug;4(4):312-22
pubmed: 9825847
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355
Fertil Steril. 2018 Nov;110(6):1154-1161.e3
pubmed: 30396560