Literature DB >> 8010198

Diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: fat-suppressed T1-weighted vs conventional MR images.

H K Ha1, Y T Lim, H S Kim, T S Suh, H H Song, S J Kim.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare fat-suppressed T1-weighted with conventional MR images for the diagnosis of endometriosis, focusing on the detectability of peritoneal implants, and to evaluate the usefulness of MR imaging in predicting the severity of disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the MR images of 31 patients with clinically suspected endometriosis. Laparoscopy confirmed no evidence of disease in two and endometriosis in 29. Conventional T1- and T2-weighted images and supplementary axial fat-suppressed images were obtained in all patients. In both groups, detection of endometriotic lesions with MR imaging was compared with detection at laparoscopy. Only the findings on fat-suppressed images were used to evaluate the usefulness of MR imaging in predicting the severity of disease. Early stages of disease included stages I and II; advanced stages of disease included stages III and IV.
RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy was higher with fat-suppressed imaging (77%) than with conventional imaging (55%) (p = .06). The overall sensitivity in detecting peritoneal implants was significantly higher with fat-suppressed imaging (61%) than with conventional imaging (27%) (p < .01). The disease was likely to be at an early stage when MR images showed peritoneal implants that were 5 mm or less in maximum diameter. The disease was likely to be at an advanced stage when MR images showed an endometrial cyst that was larger than 1.5 cm.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that fat-suppressed MR imaging is more accurate in the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis and is better for predicting the severity of disease than conventional MR imaging is.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8010198     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.163.1.8010198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  6 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

2.  Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study.

Authors:  K C Schliep; Z Chen; J B Stanford; Y Xie; S L Mumford; A O Hammoud; E Boiman Johnstone; J K Dorais; M W Varner; G M Buck Louis; C M Peterson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Utility of vaginal and rectal contrast medium in MRI for the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis.

Authors:  M Chassang; S Novellas; C Bloch-Marcotte; J Delotte; O Toullalan; A Bongain; P Chevallier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  [Adnexal Masses: Clinical Application of Multiparametric MR Imaging & O-RADS MRI].

Authors:  So Young Eom; Sung Eun Rha
Journal:  Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi       Date:  2021-09-15

5.  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

6.  Ureteral stenosis due to DIE (deep infiltrating endometriosis) with difficulty in treatment: Case report and brief literature review.

Authors:  Kuniaki Ota; Kenji Sato; Mamoru Tanaka
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2017-07-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.