• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

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,

. 2020 ; 2020 (-) : 3583989. [pub] 20200130

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, pozorovací studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc20028576

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.

Citace poskytuje 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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...