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.

1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

ACALM Study Unit Birmingham UK

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague 128 08 Apolinářská 18 Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Burton Hospitals NHS Belvedere Road Burton on Trent DE13 0RB West Midlands UK

Department of Pathology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague U Nemocnice 499 128 08 Prague Czech Republic

Department of Radiology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague Studničkova 2 128 00 Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Vercellini P. Endometriosis: what a pain it is. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine. 1997;15(3):251–261. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1068755. PubMed DOI

Cornillie F. J., Oosterlynck D., Lauweryns J. M., Koninckx P. R. Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertility and Sterility. 1990;53(6):978–983. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53570-5. PubMed DOI

Guerriero S., Saba L., Pascual M. A., et al. Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;51(5):586–595. doi: 10.1002/uog.18961. PubMed DOI

Guerriero S., Ajossa S., Minguez J. A., et al. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in uterosacral ligaments, rectovaginal septum, vagina and bladder: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;46(5):534–545. doi: 10.1002/uog.15667. PubMed DOI

Medeiros L. R., Rosa M. I., Silva B. R., et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2014;291(3):611–621. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3470-7. PubMed DOI

Nisenblat V., Bossuyt P. M. M., Farquhar C., Johnson N., Hull M. L. Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;2016(2) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009591.pub2. PubMed DOI PMC

British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy. Requirements to Be a BSGE Accredited Centre. London, UK: British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy; 2017. https://www.bsge.org.uk/requirements-to-be-a-bsge-accredited-centre/

Guerriero S., Condous G., van den Bosch T., et al. Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;48(3):318–332. doi: 10.1002/uog.15955. PubMed DOI

Bazot M., Bharwani N., Huchon C., et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. European Radiology. 2016;27(7):2765–2775. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4673-z. PubMed DOI PMC

Leonardi M., Condous G. How to perform an ultrasound to diagnose endometriosis. Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2018;21(2):61–69. doi: 10.1002/ajum.12093. PubMed DOI PMC

Cohen J. F., Korevaar D. A., Altman D. G., et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799.e012799-17 PubMed DOI PMC

Exacoustos C., Malzoni M., Di Giovanni A., et al. Ultrasound mapping system for the surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;102(1):143–150. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.043. PubMed DOI

Andres M. d. P., Lopes L. A., Baracat E. C., Podgaec S. Dienogest in the treatment of endometriosis: systematic review. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;292(3):523–529. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3681-6. PubMed DOI

Education and Practical Standards Committee. Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2006;26:84–86. PubMed

Potenta S. E., D’Agostino R., Sternberg K. M., Tatsumi K., Perusse K. CT urography for evaluation of the ureter. RadioGraphics. 2015;35(3):709–726. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140209. PubMed DOI

Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011;38(3):246–266. doi: 10.1002/uog.10054. PubMed DOI

Horne A. W., D’Hooghe T., Becker C., et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Human Reproduction. 2014;29(3):400–412. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det457. PubMed DOI

Altman D. G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York, NY, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 1999.

Vimercati A., Achilarre M. T., Scardapane A., et al. Accuracy of transvaginal sonography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance-colonography for the presurgical staging of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012;40(5):592–603. doi: 10.1002/uog.11179. PubMed DOI

Krüger K., Behrendt K., Niedobitek-Kreuter G., Koltermann K., Ebert A. D. Location-dependent value of pelvic MRI in the preoperative diagnosis of endometriosis. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2013;169(1):93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.02.007. PubMed DOI

Leonardi M., Martins W. P., Espada M., Arianayagam M., Condous G. Proposed technique to visualize and classify uterosacral ligament deep endometriosis with and without infiltration into parametrium or torus uterinus. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020;55(1):137–139. doi: 10.1002/uog.20300. PubMed DOI

Gray H., Standring S., Harold E., Berkovitz B. Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. 39th. London, UK: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005.

Savelli L., Manuzzi L., Pollastri P., Mabrouk M., Seracchioli R., Venturoli S. Diagnostic accuracy and potential limitations of transvaginal sonography for bladder endometriosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2009;34(5):595–600. doi: 10.1002/uog.7356. PubMed DOI

Bazot M., Gasner A., Ballester M., Darai E. Value of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images to assess uterosacral ligament endometriosis. Human Reproduction. 2011;26(2):346–353. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq336. PubMed DOI

Preoperative application of the Enzian classification for endometriosis (The cEnzian Study): A prospective international multicenter study

Early Learning Curve in the Assessment of Deep Pelvic Endometriosis for Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging