The accuracy of ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A narrative review

IF 0.4 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Sonography Pub Date : 2023-03-08 DOI:10.1002/sono.12350
Taylor Hansen, T. Hanchard, J. Alphonse
{"title":"The accuracy of ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A narrative review","authors":"Taylor Hansen, T. Hanchard, J. Alphonse","doi":"10.1002/sono.12350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrium‐like epithelial cells and/or stroma located outside the uterus, generally with associated inflammatory response. Commonly located on the ovaries and peritoneum, endometriosis can also infiltrate the retroperitoneal space and pelvic organs, known as deep endometriosis (DE). This narrative review aims to compare the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting deep endometriosis. A literature search was performed mid‐2021 and again in December 2022 using PubMed, SAGE and Wiley databases, and limited to studies published between 2011 and 2021. Key words deep infiltrating endometriosis, transvaginal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and diagnostic accuracy identified 16 studies which addressed the aim. The authenticity and reliability were determined by the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. When the studies were analysed, the diagnosis of DE mean sensitivity values ranged from 40% to 100% for TVUS and 50% to 100% for MRI. Mean specificity values ranged from 81.5% to 99.9% and 84.4% to 97.5%, respectively. This indicates that both MRI and TVUS have similarly accurate performance in the detection of DE. Endometriosis detection is possible with TVUS and MRI, however accuracy is dependent on the location and severity as well as limitations due to operator and image interpretation reliability. In the presence of a correctly performed dynamic TVUS examination for the diagnosis of DE, MRI adds little diagnostic value. Further research is recommended using a standardised protocol in a wider study of affected patients, including accurate clinical assessments for each location of endometriosis to inform the choice of imaging for that region.","PeriodicalId":29898,"journal":{"name":"Sonography","volume":"61 1","pages":"76 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sono.12350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrium‐like epithelial cells and/or stroma located outside the uterus, generally with associated inflammatory response. Commonly located on the ovaries and peritoneum, endometriosis can also infiltrate the retroperitoneal space and pelvic organs, known as deep endometriosis (DE). This narrative review aims to compare the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting deep endometriosis. A literature search was performed mid‐2021 and again in December 2022 using PubMed, SAGE and Wiley databases, and limited to studies published between 2011 and 2021. Key words deep infiltrating endometriosis, transvaginal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and diagnostic accuracy identified 16 studies which addressed the aim. The authenticity and reliability were determined by the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. When the studies were analysed, the diagnosis of DE mean sensitivity values ranged from 40% to 100% for TVUS and 50% to 100% for MRI. Mean specificity values ranged from 81.5% to 99.9% and 84.4% to 97.5%, respectively. This indicates that both MRI and TVUS have similarly accurate performance in the detection of DE. Endometriosis detection is possible with TVUS and MRI, however accuracy is dependent on the location and severity as well as limitations due to operator and image interpretation reliability. In the presence of a correctly performed dynamic TVUS examination for the diagnosis of DE, MRI adds little diagnostic value. Further research is recommended using a standardised protocol in a wider study of affected patients, including accurate clinical assessments for each location of endometriosis to inform the choice of imaging for that region.
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
超声与磁共振诊断深浸润性子宫内膜异位症的准确性比较:综述
子宫内膜异位症定义为子宫外存在子宫内膜样上皮细胞和/或基质,通常伴有炎症反应。子宫内膜异位症通常位于卵巢和腹膜,也可浸润腹膜后间隙和盆腔器官,称为深部子宫内膜异位症(DE)。本文旨在比较经阴道超声(TVUS)和磁共振成像(MRI)检测深部子宫内膜异位症的准确性。文献检索于2021年中期进行,并于2022年12月再次使用PubMed、SAGE和Wiley数据库进行检索,仅限于2011年至2021年间发表的研究。【关键词】深浸润性子宫内膜异位症;经阴道超声;磁共振成像;真实性和可靠性由诊断准确性报告标准确定。当对研究进行分析时,诊断DE的平均敏感性值在TVUS为40%至100%,MRI为50%至100%。平均特异性值分别为81.5% ~ 99.9%和84.4% ~ 97.5%。这表明MRI和TVUS在检测DE方面具有相似的准确性。子宫内膜异位症可以通过TVUS和MRI进行检测,但准确性取决于位置和严重程度,以及操作员和图像解释可靠性的限制。在正确进行动态TVUS检查诊断DE的情况下,MRI的诊断价值很小。进一步的研究建议采用标准化的方案,对受影响的患者进行更广泛的研究,包括对子宫内膜异位症的每个部位进行准确的临床评估,以告知该区域的影像学选择。
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
Sonography
Sonography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Diagnosis of fat embolism syndrome using point‐of‐care ultrasound Disappeared left atrial “myxoma”: Left atrial thrombus was misdiagnosed as myxoma Hypoechoic liver in a fetus with trisomy 21 but without transient abnormal myelopoiesis at birth Cardiac involvement in a case of severe eosinophilic syndrome characterized by echocardiography Heating the scanning environment during ultrasound upper limb mapping: Impact on arteriovenous fistula creation outcomes and sonographer's perceptions of heating method useability
×
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