Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nodular endometriosis: dynamic MR imaging

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In this study we aimed to investigate the value of contrast enhanced dynamic MR imaging (DMI) in the diagnosis of nodular abdominal endometriosis.

Subjects and methods

Fourteen patients with surgically and pathologically proven endometriosis were examined with DMI. The patients were 22–54 years old (mean age 30.8 years). The dynamic MR studies of these patients were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists who were aware of the clinical data. Nodular masses showing enhancement were evaluated for size, margins, and signal intensity on T1- and T2-weighted MR sequences. The protocol was tailored to selectively determine the diagnostic utility of signal intensity time course analysis for the behavior of nodular endometriosis and endometrial tissue, in DMI. Contrast-enhanced DMI was performed and the time–intensity curves of the lesions and the uterine endometrial tissue of each patient were compared. Mean enhancement values were calculated. Each DMI was evaluated for signal intensity value.

Results

In 8 (57%) of 14 patients, we found endometriosis in the abdominal wall. All patients with abdominal wall endometriosis had pelvic surgical operation history. Diameter of nodular endometriosis determined in the abdominus muscle ranged between 3 and 40 mm. Of eight cases, five had only one lesion and three had multiple lesions. Remaining 6 (43%) cases had deep pelvic endometriosis located in the uterosacral ligaments (n = 3), rectosigmoid (n = 2), and rectovaginal septum (n = 1). Diameter of pelvic endometriosis ranged between 9 and 53 mm. Noncontrast mean signal intensity of endometriosis and endometrial tissue were 280 ± 73 and 216 ± 20, respectively. The mean values of both endometriosis and normal endometrial tissue were calculated for each patient examined with five-slice DMI. All of the curves showed significant correlation. The lesion showed significant enhancement in the course of time similar to the endometrial tissue in all patients.

Conclusion

Our study was inspired from the fact that endometriosis is the ectopic endometrial tissue and we thought that endometrial tissue and endometriomas should have similar vascularity. In this way imaging with MR, getting the time–intensity curves and experiencing the correlation between the endometriosis and endometrial tissue may support the diagnosis in the cases with suspected endometriosis. This first study shows that the ectopic nodular endometriosis can easily be identified with dynamic MRI. It may be used to differentiate nodular endometriosis from the other pathologic conditions of abdominal wall and pelvis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3A, B.
Fig. 4A, B.
Fig. 5A, B.
Fig. 6.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blanco RG, Parithivel VS, Shah AK, et al. (2003) Abdominal wall endometriomas. Am J Surg 185:596–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sataloff DM, La Vorgna KA, McFarland MM (1989) Extrapelvic endometriosis presenting as a hernia: clinical reports and review of the literature. Surgery 105:109–112

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bumpers HL, Butler KL, Best IM (2002) Endometrioma of the abdominal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1709–1710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gougoutas CA, Siegelman ES, Hunt J, et al. (2000) Pelvic endometriosis: various manifestations and MR imaging findings. Am J Roentgenol 175:353–358

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Siegelman ES, Cutwater E, Wang T, et al. (1994) Solid pelvic masses caused by endometriosis: MR imaging features. Am J Roentgenol 163:357–361

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Siegmann KC, Muller-Schimpfle M, Schick F, et al. (2002) MR imaging-detected breast lesions: histopathologic correlation of lesion characteristics and signal intensity data. Am J Roentgenol 178:1403–1409

    Google Scholar 

  8. Erdem CZ, Bayar U, Erdem LO, et al. (2004) Polycystic ovary syndrome: dynamic contrast-enhanced ovary MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 51:48–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R, et al. (2004) Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology 232:379–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kinkel K, Chapron C, Balleyguier C, et al. (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod 14:1080–1086

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaunitz A, Di Sant’Agnese PA (1979) Needle tract endometriosis: an unusual complication of amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 54:753–755

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tanaka YO, Yoshizako T, Nishida M, et al. (2000) Ovarian carcinoma in patients with endometriosis: MR imaging findings. Am J Roentgenol 175:1423–1430

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Verstraete KL, Lang P (2000) Bone and soft tissue tumors: the role of contrast agents for MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 34:229–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Seki H, Takano T, Sakai K (2000) Value of dynamic MR imaging in assessing endometrial carcinoma involvement of the cervix. Am J Roentgenol 175:171–176

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Omer Onbas, Mecit Kantarci, Fatih Alper, Irmak Durur & Adnan Okur

  2. Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Yakup Kumtepe & Metin Ingec

  3. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Nesrin Gursan

Authors
  1. Omer Onbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mecit Kantarci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fatih Alper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yakup Kumtepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Irmak Durur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Metin Ingec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nesrin Gursan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Adnan Okur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Onbas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Onbas, O., Kantarci, M., Alper, F. et al. Nodular endometriosis: dynamic MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 32, 451–456 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-006-9038-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-006-9038-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation