Skip to main content

A Detailed Study in Adenomyosis and Endometriosis: Evaluation of the Rate of Coexistence Between Uterine Adenomyosis and DIE According to Imaging and Histopathology Findings

Abstract

The current study was designed to evaluate the relationship between adenomyosis and its subtypes with endometriotic lesions (ovarian endometrioma (OMAs) and posterior deep infiltrative endometriosis (DIE)), to examine the probability of existence of a common cause of these mysterious diseases, and to evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of both transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) and MRI in diagnosis of adenomyotic uterus. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we selected 154 women with coexistence of endometriosis and adenomyosis according to their imaging, intraoperative, or pathological findings who were nominated for laparoscopic surgery. Eighty-six patients with just DIE resection without LH (laparoscopic hysterectomy) (group 1), and 68 patients with LH + DIE resection (group 2). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasonographic and MRI findings for diagnosing adenomyosis were 72.1%, 77.6%, 40.0% and 49.2%, 41.5%, 90.0% respectively. So, TVS is a more sensitive diagnostic tool for diagnosing adenomyosis. However, MRI was more specific than TVS in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis especially with simultaneous presence of uterine leiomyoma. Regarding the association of different types of adenomyosis (focal and diffuse) with different endometriosis lesions (OMA and posterior compartment DIE), we just found diffuse type of adenomyosis more frequent in the absence of rectal and rectovaginal septum (RVS) DIE (p ≤ 0.05). In addition to the questionable different nature of rectal and RVS DIE lesion, there is no relationship between adenomyosis subtypes and endometriotic lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data Availability

The anonymized data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Rapkin A, Nathan L. Pelvic pain and dysmenorrhoea, adenomyosis. Berek’s and Novak’s gynecology. Chapter 16. 15th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Wiliams and Wilkins; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dolan M, Hill C, Valea F. Benign gynecologic lesions. Comprehensive gynecology. Chapter 18. 7th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  3. West C. Adenomyosis, obstetrics & gynaecology an evidence-based text for the MRCOG. Chapter 78. 3rd ed. Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Khaund A, Lumsden M. Benign disease of the uterus, Dewhurst’s textbook of obstetrics & gynaecology. Chapter 54. 8th ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):389–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, Valentin L, Rasmussen CK, Votino A, et al. 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(3):284–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Leyendecker G. Structural abnormalities of the uterine wall in women with endometriosis and infertility visualized by vaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(1):76–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.1.76.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yasui T, Hayashi K, Nagai K, Mizunuma H, Kubota T, Lee JS, et al. Risk profiles for endometriosis in Japanese women: results from a repeated survey of self-reports. J Epidemiol. 2015;25(3):194–203. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20140124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, Stalf T, Huppert P, Mall G, et al. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(4):917–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3437-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapron C, Tosti C, Marcellin L, Bourdon M, Lafay-Pillet MC, Millischer AE, et al. Relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of adenomyosis and endometriosis phenotypes. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(7):1393–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vlahos NF, Theodoridis TD, Partsinevelos GA. Myomas and adenomyosis: impact on reproductive outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:5926470–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5926470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Alabiso G, Alio L, Arena S, Barbasetti di Prun A, Bergamini V, Berlanda N, et al. Adenomyosis: what the patient needs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(4):476–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.12.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abbott JA. Adenomyosis and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A)-pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;40:68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.09.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, Alves J, Setúbal A, Guerra A. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(6):549–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0576-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Özkan ZS, Kumbak B, Cilgin H, Simsek M, Turk BA. Coexistence of adenomyosis in women operated for benign gynecological diseases. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012;28(3):212–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2011.593669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vannuccini S, Tosti C, Carmona F, Huang SJ, Chapron C, Guo SW, et al. Pathogenesis of adenomyosis: an update on molecular mechanisms. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35(5):592–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.016.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. García-Solares J, Donnez J, Donnez O, Dolmans MM. Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: invagination or metaplasia? Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):371–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leyendecker G, Wildt L. A new concept of endometriosis and adenomyosis: tissue injury and repair (TIAR). Horm Mol Biol Clin Invest. 2011;5(2):125–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/hmbci.2011.002.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaked S, Jaffa AJ, Grisaru D, Elad D. Uterine peristalsis-induced stresses within the uterine wall may sprout adenomyosis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2015;14(3):437–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-014-0614-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehasseb MK, Panchal R, Taylor AH, Brown L, Bell SC, Habiba M. Estrogen and progesterone receptor isoform distribution through the menstrual cycle in uteri with and without adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2228–35, 35.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.051.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jichan N, Xishi L, Guo SW. Promoter hypermethylation of progesterone receptor isoform B (PR-B) in adenomyosis and its rectification by a histone deacetylase inhibitor and a demethylation agent. Reprod Sci. 2010;17(11):995–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719110377118.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gargett CE, Schwab KE, Deane JA. Endometrial stem/progenitor cells: the first 10 years. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(2):137–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv051.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gargett CE. Uterine stem cells: what is the evidence? Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(1):87–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dml045.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sobel V, Zhu YS, Imperato-McGinley J. Fetal hormones and sexual differentiation. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2004;31(4):837–56, x-xi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2004.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Spencer TE, Hayashi K, Hu J, Carpenter KD. Comparative developmental biology of the mammalian uterus. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2005;68:85–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0070-2153(05)68004-0.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen YJ, Li HY, Huang CH, Twu NF, Yen MS, Wang PH, et al. Oestrogen-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition of endometrial epithelial cells contributes to the development of adenomyosis. J Pathol. 2010;222(3):261–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2761.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marcellin L, Santulli P, Bortolato S, Morin C, Millischer AE, Borghese B, et al. Anterior focal adenomyosis and bladder deep infiltrating endometriosis: is there a link? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(5):896–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alborzi S, Rasekhi A, Shomali Z, Madadi G, Alborzi M, Kazemi M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal, and transrectal ultrasonography in deep infiltrating endometriosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(8):e9536. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000009536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrão MS, Kho RM. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(2):257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Levy G, Dehaene A, Laurent N, Lernout M, Collinet P, Lucot JP, et al. An update on adenomyosis. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2012.10.012.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: state of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Exacoustos C, Zupi E, Piccione E. Ultrasound imaging for ovarian and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35(1):5–24. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1597127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Exacoustos C, Manganaro L, Zupi E. Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):655–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lazzeri L, Morosetti G, Centini G, Monti G, Zupi E, Piccione E, et al. A sonographic classification of adenomyosis: interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of type and degree of the myometrial involvement. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(6):1154–61.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics. 2011;31(1):99–115. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.311105110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gilks CB, Clement PB, Hart WR, Young RH. Uterine adenomyomas excluding atypical polypoid adenomyomas and adenomyomas of endocervical type: a clinicopathologic study of 30 cases of an underemphasized lesion that may cause diagnostic problems with brief consideration of adenomyomas of other female genital tract sites. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;19(3):195–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-200007000-00001.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rock JA. The revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis: reproducibility of scoring. ZOLADEX Endometriosis Study Group. Fertil Steril. 1995;63(5):1108–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57556-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Robboy S, Mutter G. Robboypathology of female reproductive tract chapter 17 benign gynecological disease (adenomyosis) gross pathology. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Stewart E. Uterine adenomyosis, histopathology. UpToDate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97:1073. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/uterine-adenomyosis.

  40. Brosens I, Kunz G, Benagiano G. Is adenomyosis the neglected phenotype of an endomyometrial dysfunction syndrome? Gynecol Surg. 2012;9(2):131–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-011-0723-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Parasar P, Ozcan P, Terry KL. Endometriosis: Epidemiology, diagnosis and clinical management. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017;6(1):34–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-017-0187-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Riazi H, Tehranian N, Ziaei S, Mohammadi E, Hajizadeh E, Montazeri A. Clinical diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: a scoping review. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0196-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Templeman C, Marshall SF, Ursin G, Horn-Ross PL, Clarke CA, Allen M, et al. Adenomyosis and endometriosis in the California Teachers Study. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(2):415–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schomacker ML, Hansen KE, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Forman A. Is endometriosis associated with irritable bowel syndrome? A cross-sectional study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;231:65–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lazzeri L, Di Giovanni A, Exacoustos C, Tosti C, Pinzauti S, Malzoni M, et al. Preoperative and postoperative clinical and transvaginal ultrasound findings of adenomyosis in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis. Reprod Sci. 2014;21(8):1027–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719114522520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Harada T, Ohta I, Endo Y, Sunada H, Noma H, Taniguchi F. SR-16234, a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator for pain symptoms with endometriosis: an open-label clinical trial. Yonago Acta Med. 2017;60(4):227–33. https://doi.org/10.24563/yam.2017.12.003.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Matalliotakis M, Matalliotaki C, Trivli A, Zervou MI, Kalogiannidis I, Tzardi M, et al. Keeping an eye on perimenopausal and postmenopausal endometriosis. Diseases. 2019;7(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases7010029.

  48. Khazali S, Gorgin A, Mohazzab A, Kargar R, Padmehr R, Shadjoo K, et al. Laparoscopic excision of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a prospective observational study assessing perioperative complications in 244 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(6):1619–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05144-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cozzolino M, Coccia ME, Lazzeri G, Basile F, Troiano G. Variables associated with endometriosis-related pain: a pilot study using a visual analogue scale. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(3):170–5. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1679879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nelsen LM, Lenderking WR, Pokrzywinski R, Balantac Z, Black L, Pokras S, et al. Experience of symptoms and disease impact in patients with adenomyosis. Patient. 2018;11(3):319–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0284-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Vannuccini S, Petraglia F. Recent advances in understanding and managing adenomyosis. F1000Res. 2019;8. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17242.1.

  52. Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Noe M, Kissler S, Leyendecker G. Adenomyosis in endometriosis--prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(8):2309–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei021.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Di Donato N, Montanari G, Benfenati A, Leonardi D, Bertoldo V, Monti G, et al. Prevalence of adenomyosis in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;181:289–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Zupi E, Gomel V. Association of endometriosis and adenomyosis: vast literature but scant conclusive data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(5):745–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Inoue S, Hirota Y, Ueno T, Fukui Y, Yoshida E, Hayashi T, et al. Uterine adenomyosis is an oligoclonal disorder associated with KRAS mutations. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5785. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13708-y.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Khan KN, Fujishita A, Koshiba A, Mori T, Kuroboshi H, Ogi H, et al. Biological differences between focal and diffuse adenomyosis and response to hormonal treatment. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;38(4):634–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.015.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nisolle M, Donnez J. Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(4):585–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00191-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Donnez J, Spada F, Squifflet J, Nisolle M. Bladder endometriosis must be considered as bladder adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(6):1175–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(00)01584-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Vercellini P, Consonni D, Barbara G, Buggio L, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E. Adenomyosis and reproductive performance after surgery for rectovaginal and colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28(6):704–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.02.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2427–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sørensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(3):588–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01962-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Orozco R, Perniciano M, Jurado M, Melis GB, et al. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in the rectosigmoid: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(3):281–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15662.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Hull ML. Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):Cd009591. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009591.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hanafi M. Ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis, leiomyoma, or combined with histopathological correlation. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(3):189–93. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.121421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Stamatopoulos CP, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF, Dimitriadis AS, Efstratiou I, Stamatopoulos P, et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of adenomyosis and myomas of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(5):620–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.06.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Votino A, Van den Bosch T, Installé AJ, Van Schoubroeck D, Kaijser J, Kacem Y, et al. Optimizing the ultrasound visualization of the endometrial-myometrial junction (EMJ). Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015;7(1):60–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Exacoustos C, Luciano D, Corbett B, De Felice G, Di Feliciantonio M, Luciano A, et al. The uterine junctional zone: a 3-dimensional ultrasound study of patients with endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(3):248.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all staff members from our surgical unit and histopathological unit for their expert assistance in data collecting and interpreting.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.A: Conception and design of study, responsible surgeon or imager

E.A: Data analysis and interpretation, manuscript preparation

F.Kh: Data collection

T.P: Data collection, manuscript preparation

B.A: Manuscript preparation

M.H: Patient recruitment

S.A: Patient selection and collection of patient information in early stage of work, revising the article in making structural changes, reviewing and interpretation of statistics data, English editing

H.R.SH: Statistical analysis

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahereh Poordast.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The protocol of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (code: IR.SUMS.MED.REC.1399.204). All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

At the beginning of the study, informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alborzi, S., Askary, E., Khorami, F. et al. A Detailed Study in Adenomyosis and Endometriosis: Evaluation of the Rate of Coexistence Between Uterine Adenomyosis and DIE According to Imaging and Histopathology Findings. Reprod. Sci. 28, 2387–2397 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00527-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00527-0

Keywords

  • Adenomyosis
  • Endometriosis
  • Ultrasound imaging
  • MRI