-
Something wrong with this record ?
Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound and MRI in the Mapping of Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Using the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) Consensus
T. Indrielle-Kelly, F. Frühauf, M. Fanta, A. Burgetova, D. Lavu, P. Dundr, D. Cibula, D. Fischerova,
Language English Country United States
Document type Journal Article, Observational Study
NLK
Free Medical Journals
from 2013
PubMed Central
from 2013
Europe PubMed Central
from 2013
ProQuest Central
from 2013
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2012-12-04
Open Access Digital Library
from 2013-01-01
CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost)
from 2013-01-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2013-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2013
Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles
from 2001
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2013
PubMed
32083128
DOI
10.1155/2020/3583989
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Endometriosis diagnosis pathology MeSH
- Consensus MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Ligaments pathology MeSH
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging MeSH
- Urinary Bladder pathology MeSH
- Pelvis pathology MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Rectum pathology MeSH
- Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
- Ultrasonography methods MeSH
- Uterus pathology MeSH
- Vagina pathology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Observational Study MeSH
Objectives: The primary aim was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DE) in a diseased population. The secondary aim was to offer first insights into the clinical applicability of the new International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group (IDEA) consensus for sonographic evaluation, which was also adapted for MRI and surgical reporting in this study. Methods: The study was a prospective observational cohort study. In this study, consecutive women planned for surgical treatment for DE underwent preoperative mapping of pelvic disease using TVS and MRI (index tests). The results were compared against the intraoperative findings with histopathological confirmation (reference standard). In case of disagreement between intraoperative and pathology findings, the latter was prioritised. Index tests and surgical findings were reported using a standardised protocol based on the IDEA consensus. Results: The study ran from 07/2016 to 02/2018. One-hundred and eleven women were approached, but 60 declined participation. Out of the 51 initially recruited women, two were excluded due to the missing reference standard. Both methods (TVS and MRI) had the same sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DE in the upper rectum (UpR) and rectosigmoid (RS) (UpR TVS and MRI sensitivity and specificity 100%; RS TVS and MRI sensitivity 94%; TVS and MRI specificity 84%). In the assessment of DE in the bladder (Bl), uterosacral ligaments (USL), vagina (V), rectovaginal septum (RVS), and overall pelvis (P), TVS had marginally higher specificity but lower sensitivity than MRI (Bl TVS sensitivity 89%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%; USL TVS sensitivity 74%, specificity 67%, MRI sensitivity 94%, specificity 60%; V TVS sensitivity 55%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 73%, specificity 95%; RVS TVS sensitivity 67%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 83%, specificity 93%; P TVS sensitivity 78%, specificity 97%, MRI sensitivity 91%, specificity 91%). No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TVS and MRI were observed except USL assessment (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (κ) = 0.727 [p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (κ) = 0.727 [p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (. Conclusion: We found that both imaging techniques had overall good agreement with the reference standard in the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. This is the first study to date involving the IDEA consensus for ultrasound, its modified version for MRI, and intraoperative reporting of deep pelvic endometriosis in clinical practice.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc20028576
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210114154317.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210105s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1155/2020/3583989 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32083128
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Indrielle-Kelly, T $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Burton Hospitals NHS, Belvedere Road, Burton-on-Trent DE13 0RB, West Midlands, UK.
- 245 10
- $a Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound and MRI in the Mapping of Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Using the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) Consensus / $c T. Indrielle-Kelly, F. Frühauf, M. Fanta, A. Burgetova, D. Lavu, P. Dundr, D. Cibula, D. Fischerova,
- 520 9_
- $a Objectives: The primary aim was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DE) in a diseased population. The secondary aim was to offer first insights into the clinical applicability of the new International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group (IDEA) consensus for sonographic evaluation, which was also adapted for MRI and surgical reporting in this study. Methods: The study was a prospective observational cohort study. In this study, consecutive women planned for surgical treatment for DE underwent preoperative mapping of pelvic disease using TVS and MRI (index tests). The results were compared against the intraoperative findings with histopathological confirmation (reference standard). In case of disagreement between intraoperative and pathology findings, the latter was prioritised. Index tests and surgical findings were reported using a standardised protocol based on the IDEA consensus. Results: The study ran from 07/2016 to 02/2018. One-hundred and eleven women were approached, but 60 declined participation. Out of the 51 initially recruited women, two were excluded due to the missing reference standard. Both methods (TVS and MRI) had the same sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DE in the upper rectum (UpR) and rectosigmoid (RS) (UpR TVS and MRI sensitivity and specificity 100%; RS TVS and MRI sensitivity 94%; TVS and MRI specificity 84%). In the assessment of DE in the bladder (Bl), uterosacral ligaments (USL), vagina (V), rectovaginal septum (RVS), and overall pelvis (P), TVS had marginally higher specificity but lower sensitivity than MRI (Bl TVS sensitivity 89%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%; USL TVS sensitivity 74%, specificity 67%, MRI sensitivity 94%, specificity 60%; V TVS sensitivity 55%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 73%, specificity 95%; RVS TVS sensitivity 67%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 83%, specificity 93%; P TVS sensitivity 78%, specificity 97%, MRI sensitivity 91%, specificity 91%). No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TVS and MRI were observed except USL assessment (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (κ) = 0.727 [p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (κ) = 0.727 [p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (. Conclusion: We found that both imaging techniques had overall good agreement with the reference standard in the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. This is the first study to date involving the IDEA consensus for ultrasound, its modified version for MRI, and intraoperative reporting of deep pelvic endometriosis in clinical practice.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a konsensus $7 D032921
- 650 _2
- $a endometrióza $x diagnóza $x patologie $7 D004715
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ligamenta $x patologie $7 D008022
- 650 _2
- $a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $7 D008279
- 650 _2
- $a pánev $x patologie $7 D010388
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a rektum $x patologie $7 D012007
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 650 _2
- $a ultrasonografie $x metody $7 D014463
- 650 _2
- $a močový měchýř $x patologie $7 D001743
- 650 _2
- $a uterus $x patologie $7 D014599
- 650 _2
- $a vagina $x patologie $7 D014621
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a pozorovací studie $7 D064888
- 700 1_
- $a Frühauf, F $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 08 Apolinářská 18, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Fanta, M $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 08 Apolinářská 18, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Burgetova, A $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Studničkova 2, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Lavu, D $u ACALM Study Unit, Birmingham, UK.
- 700 1_
- $a Dundr, P $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 499, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Cibula, D $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 08 Apolinářská 18, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Fischerova, D $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 128 08 Apolinářská 18, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00182164 $t BioMed research international $x 2314-6141 $g Roč. 2020, č. - (2020), s. 3583989
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32083128 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210105 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210114154313 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1608911 $s 1119756
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 2020 $c - $d 3583989 $e 20200130 $i 2314-6141 $m BioMed research international $n Biomed Res Int $x MED00182164
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210105