Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in deep pelvic endometriosis
- PMID: 40172392
- PMCID: PMC11964306
- DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20241235
Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in deep pelvic endometriosis
Abstract
Objective: Deep pelvic endometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Guidelines proposed standardized approaches for the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging; however, knowing the reasons for discrepancy is crucial. We aimed to analyze the agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings and provide potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings.
Methods: The study group consists of consecutive patients with deep pelvic endometriosis diagnosed on pelvic (n=1) or transvaginal ultrasonography (n=34) who underwent noncontrast pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. The agreement between the ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was assessed using the prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa statistics. Potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings were presented.
Results: The study group consisted of 35 patients with deep pelvic endometriosis. The mean age was 39.5±6.2 years. The most common site of involvement was the rectosigmoid colon (n=34, 97.1%), followed by endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (n=32, 91.4%). There was a perfect agreement for endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (100%), almost perfect agreement for bladder involvement (PABAK=0.886), and moderate agreement for other sites. The number of uterosacral ligament involvement was lower with ultrasonography than with magnetic resonance imaging. However, due to the impact of gas signals on magnetic resonance imaging imaging, the number and boundaries of rectosigmoid deep pelvic endometriosis were better defined with ultrasonography.
Conclusion: The agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings varies according to the sites of involvement. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are not standalone diagnostic techniques but are complementary to each other. We provided potential diagnostic pitfalls.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
Similar articles
-
Early Learning Curve in the Assessment of Deep Pelvic Endometriosis for Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Biomed Res Int. 2020 Sep 26;2020:8757281. doi: 10.1155/2020/8757281. eCollection 2020. Biomed Res Int. 2020. PMID: 33029527 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis.Hum Reprod. 2007 Dec;22(12):3092-7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem187. Epub 2007 Oct 18. Hum Reprod. 2007. PMID: 17947378 Clinical Trial.
-
Diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal 3D ultrasonography.Abdom Imaging. 2010 Dec;35(6):716-25. doi: 10.1007/s00261-009-9587-7. Abdom Imaging. 2010. PMID: 19924468
-
Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic endometriosis.Radiologia. 2017 Jul-Aug;59(4):286-296. doi: 10.1016/j.rx.2017.02.002. Epub 2017 May 2. Radiologia. 2017. PMID: 28476282 Review. English, Spanish.
-
Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: State of the art.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;51:16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.013. Epub 2018 Feb 14. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018. PMID: 29506961 Review.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical