PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the learning curves of an ultrasound trainee (obstetrics and gynecology resident) and a radiology trainee when assessing pelvic endometriosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected endometriosis were prospectively enrolled in a tertiary center. They underwent an ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively, which was reported according to the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group consensus. Trainees reported on deep endometriosis (DE), endometriomas, frozen pelvis, and adenomyosis. Using the Kappa agreement, their findings were compared against laparoscopy/histology and expert findings. The learning curve was considered positive when performance improved over time and indeterminate in all other cases. RESULTS: Reports from thirty-five women were divided chronologically into 3 equal blocks to assess the learning curve. For ultrasound, trainee versus expert showed a positive learning curve in overall pelvic DE assessment. There was an excellent agreement for adenomyosis (Kappa = 1.00, p = 0.09), frozen pelvis (Kappa = 0.90, p = 0.01), bowel (Kappa = 1.00, p = 0.01), and bladder DE assessment (Kappa = 1.00, p = 0.01). Endometrioma and uterosacral ligament assessment showed an indeterminate curve. For radiology, trainee versus expert showed a positive curve when detecting adenomyosis (Kappa = 0.42, p = 0.09) and bladder DE (Kappa = 1.00, p = 0.01). The assessment of endometriomas, frozen pelvis, overall pelvic DE, bowel, and uterosacral ligament DE showed indeterminate curve. Agreement between trainees and laparoscopy/histology showed a positive curve for bladder (both) and frozen pelvis (ultrasound only). CONCLUSION: A positive learning curve can be seen in some areas of pelvic endometriosis mapping after as little as 35 cases, but a bigger caseload is required to demonstrate the curve in full. The ultrasound trainee had positive learning curves in more anatomical locations (bladder, adenomyosis, overall bowel DE, frozen pelvis) than the radiology trainee (bladder, adenomyosis), which could be down to individual factors, differences in training, or the imaging method itself.

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 Apolinářská 18 128 08 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 Faculty Hospital Prague U Nemocnice 2 128 00 Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Reid S., Lu C., Casikar I., et al. Prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration in women with suspected endometriosis using a new real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound technique: the sliding sign. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013;41(6):685–691. doi: 10.1002/uog.12305. PubMed DOI

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 & 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. 2017;27(7):2765–2775. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4673-z. PubMed DOI PMC

Dunselman G. A. J., Vermeulen N., 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

Bazot M., Cortez A., Darai E., et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Human Reproduction. 2001;16(11):2427–2433. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427. 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 & Gynecology. 2018;51(5):586–595. doi: 10.1002/uog.18961. PubMed DOI

Indrielle-Kelly T., Frühauf F., Fanta M., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and MRI in the mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis using the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) consensus. BioMed Research International. 2020;2020:11. doi: 10.1155/2020/3583989.3583989 PubMed DOI PMC

Garrett A., Nascimento M., Nicklin J., Perrin L., Obermair A. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: the Brisbane learning curve. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2007;47(1):65–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00682.x. PubMed DOI

Okada A., Morita Y., Fukunishi H., Takeichi K., Murakami T. Non-invasive magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment of uterine fibroids in a large Japanese population: impact of the learning curve on patient outcome. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2009;34(5):579–583. doi: 10.1002/uog.7454. PubMed DOI

Landis J., Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310. PubMed DOI

Guerriero S., Pascual M. A., Ajossa S., et al. Learning curve for ultrasonographic diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis using structured offline training program. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019;54(2):262–269. doi: 10.1002/uog.20176. PubMed DOI

Bazot M., Daraï E., Biau D. J., Ballester M., Dessolle L. Learning curve of transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of endometriomas assessed by the cumulative summation test (LC-CUSUM) Fertility and Sterility. 2011;95(1):301–303. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.033. PubMed DOI