Literature DB >> 24428703

Can magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0-Tesla reliably detect patients with endometriosis? Initial results.

Maarten G Thomeer1, Anneke B Steensma, Evert J van Santbrink, Francois E Willemssen, Piotr A Wielopolski, Myriam G Hunink, Sandra Spronk, Joop S Laven, Gabriel P Krestin.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine whether an optimized 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol is sensitive and specific enough to detect patients with endometriosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study with consecutive patients. Forty consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of endometriosis underwent 3.0-Tesla MRI, including a T2-weighted high-resolution fast spin echo sequence (spatial resolution=0.75 ×1.2 ×1.5 mm³) and a 3D T1-weighted high-resolution gradient echo sequence (spatial resolution=0.75 ×1.2 × 2.0 mm³). Two radiologists reviewed the dataset with consensus reading. During laparoscopy, which was used as reference standard, all lesions were characterized according to the revised criteria of the American Fertility Society. Patient-level and region-level sensitivities and specificities and lesion-level sensitivities were calculated.
RESULTS: Patient-level sensitivity was 42% for stage I (5/12) and 100% for stages II, III and IV (25/25). Patient-level specificity for all stages was 100% (3/3). The region-level sensitivity and specificity was 63% and 97%, respectively. The sensitivity per lesion was 61% (90% for deep lesions, 48% for superficial lesions and 100% for endometriomata). The detection rate of obliteration of the cul-the-sac was 100% (10/10) with no false positive findings. The interreader agreement was substantial to perfect (kappa=1 per patient, 0.65 per lesion and 0.71 for obliteration of the cul-the-sac).
CONCLUSIONS: An optimized 3.0-Tesla MRI protocol is accurate in detecting stage II to stage IV endometriosis.
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research © 2014 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3.0-Tesla; endometriosis; magnetic resonance imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24428703     DOI: 10.1111/jog.12290

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res        ISSN: 1341-8076            Impact factor:   1.730


  5 in total

Review 1.  Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis.

Authors:  Vicki Nisenblat; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Cindy Farquhar; Neil Johnson; M Louise Hull
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-26

Review 2.  MRI for the diagnosis and staging of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a national survey of BSGE accredited endometriosis centres and review of the literature.

Authors:  Marianne Wild; Shikha Pandhi; John Rendle; Ian Swift; Emmanuel Ofuasia
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Overall Adiposity, Adipose Tissue Distribution, and Endometriosis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Uba Backonja; Germaine M Buck Louis; Diane R Lauver
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.381

4.  European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis.

Authors:  M Bazot; N Bharwani; C Huchon; K Kinkel; T M Cunha; A Guerra; L Manganaro; L Buñesch; A Kido; K Togashi; I Thomassin-Naggara; A G Rockall
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A short anogenital distance on MRI is a marker of endometriosis.

Authors:  A Crestani; C Abdel Wahab; A Arfi; S Ploteau; K Kolanska; M Breban; S Bendifallah; C Ferrier; E Darai
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2021-02-17
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.