A Crestani1, C Abdel Wahab2, A Arfi1, S Ploteau3, K Kolanska1, M Breban1, S Bendifallah1,4,5, C Ferrier1, E Darai1,4,5,6. 1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Paris, France. 2. Department of Radiology, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Paris, France. 3. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, CIC FEA, Hôpital Mère Enfant, CHU Hôtel Dieu, Nantes, France. 4. UMRS 938, Centre de recherche Saint Antoine, Faculté de Médecine Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 5. INSERM UMR_S_707, 'Epidemiology, Information Systems, Modeling', University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France. 6. Groupe de recherche clinique (GRC-6), Centre Expert En Endométriose (C3E), Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris, hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: Could the anogenital distance (AGD) as assessed by MRI (MRI-AGD) be a diagnostic tool for endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: A short MRI-AGD is a strong diagnostic marker of endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A short clinically assessed AGD (C-AGD) is associated with the presence of endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This study is a re-analysis of previously published data from a case-control study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Women undergoing pelvic surgery from January 2018 to June 2019 and who had a preoperative pelvic MRI were included. C-AGD was measured at the beginning of the surgery by a different operator who was unaware of the endometriosis status. MRI-AGD was measured retrospectively by a senior radiologist who was blinded to the final diagnosis. Two measurements were made: from the posterior wall of the clitoris to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AC), and from the posterior wall of the vagina to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AF). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The study compared MRI-AGD of 67 women with endometriosis to 31 without endometriosis (controls). Average MRI-AGD-AF measurements were 13.3 mm (±3.9) and 21.2 mm (±5.4) in the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). Average MRI-AGD-AC measurements were 40.4 mm (±7.3) and 51.1 mm (±8.6) for the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). There was no difference of MRI-AGD in women with and without endometrioma (P = 0.21), or digestive involvement (P = 0.26). Moreover, MRI-AGD values were independent of the revised score of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Enzian score. The diagnosis of endometriosis was negatively associated with both the MRI-AGD-AF (β = -7.79, 95% CI (-9.88; -5.71), P < 0.001) and MRI-AGD-AC (β = -9.51 mm, 95% CI (-12.7; 6.24), P < 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Age (β = +0.31 mm, 95% CI (0.09; 0.53), P = 0.006) and BMI (β = +0.44 mm, 95% CI (0.17; 0.72), P = 0.001) were positively associated with the MRI-AGD-AC measurements in multivariable analysis. MRI-AGD-AF had an AUC of 0.869 (95% CI (0.79; 0.95)) and outperformed C-AGD. Using an optimal cut-off of 20 mm for MRI-AGD-AF, a sensitivity of 97.01% and a specificity of 70.97% were noted. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective analysis and no adolescents had been included. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is consistent with previous works associating a short C-AGD with endometriosis and the absence of correlation with the disease phenotype. MRI-AGD is more accurate than C-AGD in this setting and could be evaluated in the MRI examination of patients with suspected endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: N/A. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was approved by the 'Groupe Nantais d'Ethique dans le Domaine de la Santé' and registered under reference 02651077.
STUDY QUESTION: Could the anogenital distance (AGD) as assessed by MRI (MRI-AGD) be a diagnostic tool for endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: A short MRI-AGD is a strong diagnostic marker of endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A short clinically assessed AGD (C-AGD) is associated with the presence of endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This study is a re-analysis of previously published data from a case-control study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Women undergoing pelvic surgery from January 2018 to June 2019 and who had a preoperative pelvic MRI were included. C-AGD was measured at the beginning of the surgery by a different operator who was unaware of the endometriosis status. MRI-AGD was measured retrospectively by a senior radiologist who was blinded to the final diagnosis. Two measurements were made: from the posterior wall of the clitoris to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AC), and from the posterior wall of the vagina to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AF). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The study compared MRI-AGD of 67 women with endometriosis to 31 without endometriosis (controls). Average MRI-AGD-AF measurements were 13.3 mm (±3.9) and 21.2 mm (±5.4) in the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). Average MRI-AGD-AC measurements were 40.4 mm (±7.3) and 51.1 mm (±8.6) for the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). There was no difference of MRI-AGD in women with and without endometrioma (P = 0.21), or digestive involvement (P = 0.26). Moreover, MRI-AGD values were independent of the revised score of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Enzian score. The diagnosis of endometriosis was negatively associated with both the MRI-AGD-AF (β = -7.79, 95% CI (-9.88; -5.71), P < 0.001) and MRI-AGD-AC (β = -9.51 mm, 95% CI (-12.7; 6.24), P < 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Age (β = +0.31 mm, 95% CI (0.09; 0.53), P = 0.006) and BMI (β = +0.44 mm, 95% CI (0.17; 0.72), P = 0.001) were positively associated with the MRI-AGD-AC measurements in multivariable analysis. MRI-AGD-AF had an AUC of 0.869 (95% CI (0.79; 0.95)) and outperformed C-AGD. Using an optimal cut-off of 20 mm for MRI-AGD-AF, a sensitivity of 97.01% and a specificity of 70.97% were noted. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective analysis and no adolescents had been included. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is consistent with previous works associating a short C-AGD with endometriosis and the absence of correlation with the disease phenotype. MRI-AGD is more accurate than C-AGD in this setting and could be evaluated in the MRI examination of patients with suspected endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: N/A. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was approved by the 'Groupe Nantais d'Ethique dans le Domaine de la Santé' and registered under reference 02651077.
Authors: Maria L Sánchez-Ferrer; Jaime Mendiola; Raquel Jiménez-Velázquez; Laura Cánovas-López; Shiana Corbalán-Biyang; Ana I Hernández-Peñalver; Ana Carmona-Barnosi; Ana B Maldonado-Cárceles; Maria T Prieto-Sánchez; Francisco Machado-Linde; Anibal Nieto; Alberto M Torres-Cantero Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Kelechi E Nnoaham; Lone Hummelshoj; Premila Webster; Thomas d'Hooghe; Fiorenzo de Cicco Nardone; Carlo de Cicco Nardone; Crispin Jenkinson; Stephen H Kennedy; Krina T Zondervan Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Vicki Nisenblat; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Rabia Shaikh; Cindy Farquhar; Vanessa Jordan; Carola S Scheffers; Ben Willem J Mol; Neil Johnson; M Louise Hull Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-05-01
Authors: Khalid S Khan; Konstantinos Tryposkiadis; Seema A Tirlapur; Lee J Middleton; Andrew J Sutton; Lee Priest; Elizabeth Ball; Moji Balogun; Anju Sahdev; Tracy Roberts; Judy Birch; Jane P Daniels; Jonathan J Deeks Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: María L Sánchez-Ferrer; Raquel Jiménez-Velázquez; Jaime Mendiola; María T Prieto-Sánchez; Laura Cánovas-López; Ana Carmona-Barnosi; Shiana Corbalán-Biyang; Ana I Hernández-Peñalver; Evdochia Adoamnei; Aníbal Nieto; Alberto M Torres-Cantero Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Emily Liu; Vicki Nisenblat; Cindy Farquhar; Ian Fraser; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Neil Johnson; M Louise Hull Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-23
Authors: Vicki Nisenblat; Lucy Prentice; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Cindy Farquhar; M Louise Hull; Neil Johnson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-07-13