Comparing magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in the clinical evaluation of fibroids prior to uterine artery embolization

IF 1.5 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.01.028
Alexis M. Medema MScR , Nicole C. Zanolli MD , Brendan Cline MD , Waleska Pabon-Ramos MD, MPH , Jonathan G. Martin MD
{"title":"Comparing magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in the clinical evaluation of fibroids prior to uterine artery embolization","authors":"Alexis M. Medema MScR ,&nbsp;Nicole C. Zanolli MD ,&nbsp;Brendan Cline MD ,&nbsp;Waleska Pabon-Ramos MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Jonathan G. Martin MD","doi":"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.01.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Uterine artery embolization<span><span><span> has become established as a frontline treatment for </span>uterine leiomyomata<span>. In planning embolization, preprocedural imaging can further characterize pathology and </span></span>anatomy, but it may also reveal coexisting diagnoses that have the potential to change clinical management. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of ultrasound and MRI performed for patients prior to undergoing embolization.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span><span><span>The study cohort consisted of 199 patients who underwent uterine artery embolization at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018. Prior to embolization, all patients had an MRI confirming a </span>leiomyomata diagnosis. Additionally, 118 patients underwent </span>transvaginal ultrasound within five years prior to MRI. MRI findings were analyzed and, when applicable, compared to prior ultrasound impressions to assess for the incidence of new findings. The diagnoses of interest were </span>adenomyosis, </span>hydrosalpinx, predominantly infarcted leiomyomata, and large intracavitary leiomyomata. Data were collected from retrospective chart review and included demographics, symptomology, and imaging reports.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>199 patients ultimately underwent embolization for treatment of MRI-confirmed leiomyomata. Of 118 patients who also had an ultrasound within five years prior to their MRI, 26 (22.0%) received a second gynecologic diagnosis based on MRI findings that was not previously seen on ultrasound. Of 81 patients who only had an MRI before embolization, 19 (23.5%) received a second gynecologic diagnosis not previously documented. The most common coexisting pathology was adenomyosis, presenting in 34 (17.1%) patients with leiomyomata, followed by large intracavitary leiomyomata (8, 4.0%), infarcted leiomyomata (7, 3.5%), and hydrosalpinx (6, 3.0%),.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>When considering uterine artery embolization for the treatment of symptomatic leiomyomata, preprocedural MRI is superior to ultrasound in detecting coexisting pathologies, including adenomyosis and hydrosalpinx. It can also better characterize leiomyomata, including identifying lesions as intracavitary or infarcted. These findings have the potential to alter clinical management or contraindicate embolization entirely.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51617,"journal":{"name":"Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology","volume":"53 2","pages":"Pages 308-312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363018824000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Uterine artery embolization has become established as a frontline treatment for uterine leiomyomata. In planning embolization, preprocedural imaging can further characterize pathology and anatomy, but it may also reveal coexisting diagnoses that have the potential to change clinical management. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of ultrasound and MRI performed for patients prior to undergoing embolization.

Methods

The study cohort consisted of 199 patients who underwent uterine artery embolization at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018. Prior to embolization, all patients had an MRI confirming a leiomyomata diagnosis. Additionally, 118 patients underwent transvaginal ultrasound within five years prior to MRI. MRI findings were analyzed and, when applicable, compared to prior ultrasound impressions to assess for the incidence of new findings. The diagnoses of interest were adenomyosis, hydrosalpinx, predominantly infarcted leiomyomata, and large intracavitary leiomyomata. Data were collected from retrospective chart review and included demographics, symptomology, and imaging reports.

Results

199 patients ultimately underwent embolization for treatment of MRI-confirmed leiomyomata. Of 118 patients who also had an ultrasound within five years prior to their MRI, 26 (22.0%) received a second gynecologic diagnosis based on MRI findings that was not previously seen on ultrasound. Of 81 patients who only had an MRI before embolization, 19 (23.5%) received a second gynecologic diagnosis not previously documented. The most common coexisting pathology was adenomyosis, presenting in 34 (17.1%) patients with leiomyomata, followed by large intracavitary leiomyomata (8, 4.0%), infarcted leiomyomata (7, 3.5%), and hydrosalpinx (6, 3.0%),.

Conclusions

When considering uterine artery embolization for the treatment of symptomatic leiomyomata, preprocedural MRI is superior to ultrasound in detecting coexisting pathologies, including adenomyosis and hydrosalpinx. It can also better characterize leiomyomata, including identifying lesions as intracavitary or infarcted. These findings have the potential to alter clinical management or contraindicate embolization entirely.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较磁共振成像和超声波在子宫动脉栓塞术前子宫肌瘤临床评估中的应用
目的 子宫动脉栓塞术已成为子宫纵膈肌瘤的一线治疗方法。在制定栓塞计划时,术前成像可进一步确定病理和解剖特征,但也可能发现可能改变临床治疗的并存诊断。本研究旨在比较患者在接受栓塞术前进行超声和核磁共振成像的诊断结果。研究队列包括 2013 年至 2018 年期间在一家学术机构接受子宫动脉栓塞术的 199 名患者。栓塞术前,所有患者都进行了核磁共振检查,确诊为子宫肌瘤。此外,118 名患者在核磁共振检查前五年内接受了经阴道超声检查。我们对核磁共振成像结果进行了分析,并酌情将其与之前的超声检查结果进行了对比,以评估新结果的发生率。相关的诊断包括子宫腺肌病、肾盂积水、主要梗死的子宫纵膈肌瘤和大的腔内子宫纵膈肌瘤。数据通过回顾性病历审查收集,包括人口统计学、症状学和影像学报告。118名患者在接受核磁共振检查前五年内也接受了超声检查,其中26人(22.0%)根据核磁共振检查结果接受了之前超声检查未发现的第二次妇科诊断。在 81 名仅在栓塞前进行过核磁共振成像的患者中,有 19 人(23.5%)接受了之前未记录的第二次妇科诊断。最常见的并存病变是子宫腺肌病,34 例(17.1%)患者合并有子宫纵膈,其次是腔内巨大子宫纵膈(8 例,4.0%)、梗死性子宫纵膈(7 例,3.5%)和肾盂积水(6 例,3.0%)。结论在考虑采用子宫动脉栓塞术治疗无症状子宫肌瘤时,术前磁共振成像在检测并存病变(包括子宫腺肌病和肾积水)方面优于超声波。磁共振成像还能更好地描述子宫肌瘤的特征,包括识别腔内病变或梗死病变。这些发现有可能改变临床治疗或完全禁止栓塞治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
113
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology covers important and controversial topics in radiology. Each issue presents important viewpoints from leading radiologists. High-quality reproductions of radiographs, CT scans, MR images, and sonograms clearly depict what is being described in each article. Also included are valuable updates relevant to other areas of practice, such as medical-legal issues or archiving systems. With new multi-topic format and image-intensive style, Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology offers an outstanding, time-saving investigation into current topics most relevant to radiologists.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Gender equality in radiology: 3 steps worth taking Breast Imaging: what women & healthcare professionals need to know #HeForShe in radiology: A toolkit for radiologists
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1