Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Classification of Uterine Adenomyosis

  • Uterine Fibroids and Endometrial Lesions (T. Tulandi, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of the present study is to review the existing literature regarding the classifications of uterine adenomyosis and to assess the clinical significance of each classification.

Recent Findings

Adenomyosis is a benign gynecological disease characterized by the presence of ectopic endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) within the myometrium surrounded by hyperplastic and hypertrophic smooth musculature within the uterus. There are several classifications of uterine adenomyosis. The disease is mainly classified in focal adenomyosis, diffuse adenomyosis, and adenomyomas.

The histopathologic classification recognizes 4 criteria: the distance of the foci from the endometrium, the depth of the penetration, the pattern of the disease, and the configuration of the lesion.

The sonographic classification includes as criteria the abnormalities in (a) the uterine serosa, (b) the definition of the lesion, (c) the symmetry of the uterine walls, (d) the shape, (e) the contour, (f) the shadowing of the lesion, (g) the echogenicity, (h) the vascularity of adenomyosis, and the (i) regularity of the endometrial rim.

The MRI classification uses as criteria (a) the presence of disease in the inner uterine layer, (b) the presence of disease in the outer uterine layer, and (c) the solidarity of the lesions.

Finally, the clinical, treatment-based classification uses as criteria the extent of the presence of the disease throughout the myometrium, the configuration of the lesion (focal or diffuse), and the consistency of the lesion (cystic/solid, and gland- or muscle-predominant).

Summary

There are numerous proposed classifications of uterine adenomyosis, mainly based on histopathological and imaging findings. The current emerging challenge is the integration of the pathogenesis, the clinical phenotype, the imaging features, and the histology of the disease, in a common classification that will allow an accurate treatment decision and further satisfactory prognosis of the adenomyotic lesion in all the affected patients.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Guerriero S, Dueholm M, Leone F.P.G, Valentin L, Rasmussen C, Votino A, Van Schoubroeck D, Landolfo C, Install AJ. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015;46:284–98.

  2. Prašnikar E, Kunej T, Repnik K, Potocnik U, Knez J, Kovacic B. Determining the molecular background of endometrial receptivity in adenomyosis. Biomolecules. 2020;10:1311.

  3. von Rokitansky C. “Uber Uterusdru” sen-Neubildung. Z Gesellschaft Aerzte (Wien). 1860;16:577–81.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sampson JA. Perforating hemorrhagic (chocolate) cysts of the ovary. Their importance and especially their relation to pelvic adenomas of endometrial type. Adenomyoma of the uterus, rectovaginal septum, sigmoid, etc. Arch Surg. 1921;3:245–323.

  5. Parrott E, Butterworth M. Green a WIN, Greaves P. Adenomyosis–a result of disordered stromal differentiation. Am J Pathol. 2001;159:623–630.

  6. Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, Stalf T, Huppert P, Mall G, Böttcher B, Wildt L. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291: 917–932.

  7. Gargett C, Schwab K, Deane J. Endometrial stem/progenitor cells: the first 10 years. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:137–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chapron C, Tosti, Marcellin L, Bourdon M, Lafay-Pillet M, Millischer A, Streuli I, Borghese B, Petraglia F, Santulli P. Relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of adenomyosis and endometriosis phenotypes. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1393–1401.

  9. Marcellin L, Santulli P, Bortolato S, Morin C, Millischer A, Borghese B, Chapron C. Anterior focal adenomyosis and bladder deep infiltrating endometriosis: is there a link? Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:896–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Upson K, Missmer S. Epidemiology of adenomyosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38:89–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, Brockwell SE, Schocken M, Johnston JM. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91:201–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Peric H, Fraser IS. The symptomatology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:547–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bourdon M, Santulli P, Marcellin L, Maignien C, Maitrot-Mantelet L, Bordonne C, Plu Bureau G, Chapron C. Adenomyosis: an update regarding its diagnosis and clinical features. Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50:102228.

  14. Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Foo X, Jurkovic D. Is adenomyosis associated with menorrhagia? Hum Reprod. 2014;29:473–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Levgur M, Abadi MA, Tucker A. Adenomyosis: symptoms, histology, and pregnancy terminations. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:688–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Condous G, Van B, Van S, Lam A. What is the value of preoperative bimanual pelvic examination in women undergoing laparoscopic total hysterectomy? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:334–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tellum T, Nygaard S, Lieng M. Noninvasive diagnosis of adenomyosis: a structured review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:408–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vannuccini S, Petraglia F. Recent advances in understanding and managing adenomyosis. F1000Res. 2019;13:8.

  19. Vercellini P, Parazzini F, Oldani S, Panazza S, Bramante T, Crosignani PG. Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: a study on frequency distribution and patient characteristics. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1160–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Novak ER, Woodruff JD. Novak's Gynecologic and obstetric pathology: with clinical and endocrine relations. Saunders Philadelphia. 1979.

  21. Hendrickson MR, Kempson RL. The differential diagnosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Some viewpoints concerning a common diagnostic problem. Pathology. 1980;12:35–61.

  22. Bird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus–revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972;112:583–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Siegler AM, Camilien L. Adenomyosis. J Reprod Med. 1994;39:841–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vercellini P, Vigan P, Somigliana E, Daguati R, Abbiati A, Fedele L. Adenomyosis: epidemiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:465–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Levy G, Dehaene A, Laurent N, Lernout M, Collinet P, Lucot JP, Lions C, Poncelet E. An update on adenomyosis. Diag Interv Imaging. 2013;94:3–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Jurkovic D, Holland TK. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:3432–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Munro M, Critchley H, Broder M, Fraser I. FIGO working group on menstrual disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113:3–13.

  28. • Van den Bosch T, de Bruijn A, de Leeuw R, Dueholm M, Exacoustos C, Valentin L, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Huirne J. Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53:576–582. This article classifies adenomyosis by ultrasound findings. It represents a holistic sonographic diagnostic approach not only for adenomyosis but for any uterine disease as well.

  29. Exacoustos C, Manganaro L, Zupi E. Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clinic Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28:655–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. • Exacoustos C, Morosetti G, Conway F, Camilli S, Martire F, Lazzeri L, Piccione E, Zupi E. New sonographic classification of adenomyosis: do type and degree of adenomyosis correlate to severity of symptoms? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:1308–1315.This article classifies adenomyosis by ultrasound findings. The authors introduce a classification and scoring system for uterine adenomyosis in an attempt to correlate symptoms to sonographic findings.

  31. Vandermeulen L, Cornelis A, Kjaergaard Rasmussen C, Timmerman D, Van den Bosch T. Guiding histological assessment of uterine lesions using 3D in vitro ultrasonography and stereotaxis. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2017;9:77–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Albrecht L, LaMonica R, Proffer A, Zupi E, Luciano AA. Three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis of adenomyosis: histologic correlation with ultrasound targeted biopsies of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:803–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gordts S, Brosens J, Fusi L, Benagiano G, Brosens I. Uterine adenomyosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. RBM Online. 2008;17:244–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • Kishi Y, Suginami H, Kuramori R, Yabuta M, Suginami R, Taniguchi F. Four subtypes of adenomyosis assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and their specification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:114.e1–114.e7. This article classifies adenomyosis by MRI findings. It represents one of the most important radiologic classifications of the disease.

  35. Dashottar S, Singh A, Debnath J, Muralidharan C, Singh R, Kumar S. Comparative analysis of changes in MR imaging of pre and post intrauterine progesterone implants in adenomyosis cases. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71:145–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Jung DC, Kim MD, Oh YT, Won JY, Lee DY. Prediction of early response to uterine arterial embolisation of adenomyosis: value of T2 signal intensity ratio of adenomyosis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2044–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. • Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:389–397. This article classifies adenomyosis by ultrasound and MRI findings. It represents the most recent radiologic classification of the disease.

  38. McCausland AM, McCausland VM. Depth of endometrial penetration in adenomyosis helps determine outcome of rollerball ablation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(1786–93):93–4.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1374–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. • Grimbizis GF, Mikos T, Tarlatzis B. Uterus-sparing operative treatment for adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:472–487. This article classifies adenomyosis by surgical findings. It represents a clinical approach that attempts to relate intra-operative findings with the prognosis of the disease.

  41. Mikos T, Lioupis M, Anthoulakis C, Grimbizis GF. The outcome of fertility-sparing and nonfertility-sparing surgery for the treatment of adenomyosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:309–331.

  42. McCausland AM. Hysteroscopic myometrial biopsy: its use in diagnosing adenomyosis and its clinical application. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(1619–26):26–8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pistofidis G, Makrakis E, Koukoura O, Bardis N, Balinakos P, Anaf V. Distinct types of uterine adenomyosis based on laparoscopic and histopathologic criteria. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2014;41:113–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Panganamamula UR, Harmanli OH, Isik-Akbay EF, Grotegut CA, Dandolu V, Gaughan JP. Is prior uterine surgery a risk factor for adenomyosis? Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:1034–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vavilis D, Agorastos T, Tzafetas J, Loufopoulos A, Vakiani M, Constantinidis T, Patsiaoura K, Bontis J. Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: prevalence and relationship to operative findings and reproductive and menstrual factors. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1997;24:36–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pinzauti S, Lazzeri L, Tosti C, Centini G, Orlandini C, Luisi S, et al. Transvaginal sonographic features of diffuse adenomyosis in 18–30-year-old nulligravid women without endometriosis: association with symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:730–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sammour A, Pirwany I, Usubutun A, Arseneau J, Tulandi T. Correlations between extent and spread of adenomyosis and clinical symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2002;54:213–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, Brockwell SE, Schocken M, Johnston JM. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91:201–206.

  49. Bruun MR, Arendt LH, Forman A, Ramlau-Hansen CH. Endometriosis and adenomyosis are associated with increased risk of preterm delivery and a small-for-gestational-age child: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:1073–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Razavi M, Maleki-Hajiagha A, Sepidarkish M, Rouholamin S, Almasi-Hashiani A, Rezaeinejad M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes after uterine adenomyosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145:149–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Juang C-M, Chou P, Yen M-S, Twu N-F, Horng H-C, Hsu W-L. Adenomyosis and risk of preterm delivery. BJOG. 2007;114:165–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Scala C, Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Racca A, Barra F, Vellone VG, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Influence of adenomyosis on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in women with endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:666–671.

  53. Kissler S, Zangos S, Vogl TJ, Hamscho N, Gruenwald F, Kohl J, Kaufmann M, Siebzehnruebl E. Impaired utero-tubal sperm transport in adenomyosis and endometriosis—a cause for infertility. Int Congr Ser. 2004;1271:229–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Campo S, Campo V, Benagiano G. Adenomyosis and infertility. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zouzoulas OD, Tsolakidis D, Efstratiou I, Pervana S, Pazarli E, Grimbizis G. Correlation between Adenomyosis and Endometrial cancer: 6-year experience of a single center. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2018;10:147–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Papageorgiou” General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Ring Road, Nea Efkarpia, 56403, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Christos Zymperdikas, Themistoklis Mikos & Grigoris F. Grimbizis

Authors
  1. Christos Zymperdikas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Themistoklis Mikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grigoris F. Grimbizis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Themistoklis Mikos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Uterine Fibroids and Endometrial Lesions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zymperdikas, C., Mikos, T. & Grimbizis, G.F. Classification of Uterine Adenomyosis. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 11, 186–197 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-022-00337-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-022-00337-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation