Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of findings in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis on ultrasound

  • Pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

MRI is the current imaging gold standard to diagnose adenomyosis, but access is often limited by high costs and availability. Transvaginal ultrasound provides a cost-effective, accurate and readily available alternative. The objective of our study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of commonly described sonographic findings in predicting uterine adenomyosis.

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated 649 MRI studies performed to investigate adenomyosis with a preceding transvaginal ultrasound within 12 months between 2013 and 2018. Two blinded reviewers assessed the presence or absence of six sonographic features: bulky uterus, heterogeneous myometrium, streaky myometrium, myometrial cysts, endometrial–myometrial interface ill-definition, and echogenic linear striations. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of these features were calculated individually and in combination when compared to MRI as the standard of reference.

Results

Adenomyosis was found in 315 (48.5%) cases on MRI. Ultrasound had a high specificity of 91.8% (95% CI 88.4 to 94.6%) but was less sensitive (36.8% (95% CI 31.5 to 42.4%)) for detecting adenomyosis. Comorbid fibroids or focal adenomyosis did not affect diagnostic accuracy. All six variables were significantly more common in patients with adenomyosis compared to those without. Individually, ‘bulky uterus’ and ‘heterogenous myometrium’ each demonstrated a mean sensitivity and specificity > 50%. The best dual combined variables were ‘bulky uterus’ + ‘ill definition of the endometrial–myometrial interface’ (sensitivity 39%, specificity 91%). The best triple combined variables were ‘bulky uterus’, ‘heterogeneous myometrium’ + ‘ill definition of the endometrial-myometrial interface’ (sensitivity 38%, specificity 93%).

Conclusion

Transvaginal ultrasound is highly specific for diagnosing uterine adenomyosis, providing a cost-effective and readily available alternative to MRI.

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. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, Rohoman L (1999) Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 19 Spec No:S147-160. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.suppl_1.g99oc13s147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abbott JA (2017) Adenomyosis and Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB-A)-Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology 40:68-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yeniel O, Cirpan T, Ulukus M, Ozbal A, Gundem G, Ozsener S, Zekioglu O, Yilmaz H (2007) Adenomyosis: prevalence, risk factors, symptoms and clinical findings. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology 34 (3):163-167

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA (2016) Adenomyosis: A Clinical Review of a Challenging Gynecologic Condition. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 23 (2):164-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.09.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia L, Isaacson K (2011) Adenomyosis: review of the literature. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 18 (4):428-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi EJ, Cho SB, Lee SR, Lim YM, Jeong K, Moon HS, Chung H (2017) Comorbidity of gynecological and non-gynecological diseases with adenomyosis and endometriosis. Obstetrics & gynecology science 60 (6):579-586. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2017.60.6.579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A (2006) Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology 20 (4):511-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS (2010) Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 89 (11):1374-1384. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349.2010.512061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Meredith SM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201 (1):107.e101-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham RK, Horrow MM, Smith RJ, Springer J (2018) Adenomyosis: A Sonographic Diagnosis. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 38 (5):1576-1589. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dartmouth K (2014) A systematic review with meta-analysis: the common sonographic characteristics of adenomyosis. Ultrasound (Leeds, England) 22 (3):148-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271x14528837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reinhold C, Atri M, Mehio A, Zakarian R, Aldis AE, Bret PM (1995) Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology 197 (3):609-614. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Goynumer G, Tutal E (2007) Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 30 (3):341-345. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3985

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bazot M, Darai E, Rouger J, Detchev R, Cortez A, Uzan S (2002) Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20 (6):605-611. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00852.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamimi A (2015) What are the most reliable signs for the radiologic diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis? An ultrasound and MRI prospective. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 46 (4):1349-1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrnm.2015.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Salem S, Cargill Y, Fong K (2016) Joint CAR/SOGC Statement on Performing Ultrasound Examinations of the Female Pelvis. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada: JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada: JOGC 38 (1):84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2015.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osorio F, Alves J, Setubal A, Guerra A (2017) MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights into imaging 8 (6):549-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0576-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J, Toullalan O, Chevallier A, Bouaziz J, Chevallier P (2011) MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR American journal of roentgenology 196 (5):1206-1213. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.4877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, Uzan S (2001) Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 16 (11):2427-2433

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology & Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta Hospital, 2A2.41 WMC 8440-112 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, Canada

    Medica Sam, Monique Raubenheimer, Florin Manolea, Hector Aguilar, Rishi P. Mathew, Vimal H. Patel & Gavin Low

Authors
  1. Medica Sam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monique Raubenheimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florin Manolea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hector Aguilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rishi P. Mathew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vimal H. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gavin Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Raubenheimer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sam, M., Raubenheimer, M., Manolea, F. et al. Accuracy of findings in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis on ultrasound. Abdom Radiol 45, 842–850 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02231-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02231-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation