Advertisement

Diagnostic Imaging for Uterine Fibroids, Adenomyosis, and Uterine Sarcomas

  • Aki Kido
Chapter
Part of the Comprehensive Gynecology and Obstetrics book series (CGO)

Abstract

The main role of imaging for uterine mesenchymal tumors is to make an accurate diagnosis of each tumor, especially differentiating malignant tumors from benign ones. Because of the superior spatial resolution of MR imaging compared to ultrasound and computed tomography, detailed information related to the disease is often obtained from MR imaging. For uterine leiomyoma, or fibroid, it is necessary to know the variation of image findings of leiomyoma such as edema, myxoid change, and several variants of leiomyoma. Because most of the degenerated leiomyomas and variants show high signal intensity on T2-weighted image of MRI, a key sequence for diagnosing uterine tumor is T2-weighted image. That knowledge of variation is important for differentiation from sarcomas, especially leiomyosarcoma and low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma. Typical features of leiomyosarcoma are hemorrhage and necrosis within the tumor. They are reflected as irregularly unenhanced lesion with high signal intensity on T1-weighted image. In cases of adenomyosis, hemorrhagic foci or dilated cystic glands within the heterotopic endometrial tissue are visualized as cystic lesions both on US and MRI. Adenomyosis also receives hormonal influence by hormonal therapy or pregnancy. Those changes were visualized using MR imaging.

Keywords

MRI Uterine fibroid/leiomyoma Uterine sarcoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Sawamura Y, Shinagawa A, Tsujikawa T, Okazawa H, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET and MRI in assessment of uterine smooth muscle tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(5):708–12.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.047142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almen T, Bellin MF, Bertolotto M, Bongartz G, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):307–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19 Spec No:S147–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Togashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I, Itoh H, Nishimura K, Fujisawa I, et al. Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171(2):531–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee JK, Gersell DJ, Balfe DM, Worthington JL, Picus D, Gapp G. The uterus: in vitro MR-anatomic correlation of normal and abnormal specimens. Radiology. 1985;157(1):175–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zaloudek C, Hendrickson MR, Soslow RA. Mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. In: Kurman RJ, editor. Blaustein’s pathology of the female tract. New York: Springer; 2002. p. 561–616.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ueda H, Togashi K, Konishi I, Kataoka ML, Koyama T, Fujiwara T, et al. Unusual appearances of uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging findings and their histopathologic backgrounds. Radiographics. 1999;19 Spec No:S131–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Morisawa N, Fujimoto K, Mikami Y, et al. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(4):723–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0787-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maldjian JA, Listerud J, Moonis G, Siddiqi F. Computing diffusion rates in T2-dark hematomas and areas of low T2 signal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(1):112–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hiwatashi A, Kinoshita T, Moritani T, Wang HZ, Shrier DA, Numaguchi Y, et al. Hypointensity on diffusion-weighted MRI of the brain related to T2 shortening and susceptibility effects. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(6):1705–9.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.6.1811705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mittl RL Jr, Yeh IT, Kressel HY. High-signal-intensity rim surrounding uterine leiomyomas on MR images: pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1991;180(1):81–3.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.180.1.2052728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim JC, Kim SS, Park JY. “Bridging vascular sign” in the MR diagnosis of exophytic uterine leiomyoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(1):57–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonel HM, Lu Y, Zaloudek C, Hricak H. Prediction of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MR imaging-a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2000;216(2):444–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torashima M, Yamashita Y, Matsuno Y, Takahashi M, Nakahara K, Onitsuka Y, et al. The value of detection of flow voids between the uterus and the leiomyoma with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8(2):427–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nishino M, Hayakawa K, Minami M, Yamamoto A, Ueda H, Takasu K. Primary retroperitoneal neoplasms: CT and MR imaging findings with anatomic and pathologic diagnostic clues. Radiographics. 2003;23(1):45–57.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.231025037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panageas E, Kier R, McCauley TR, McCarthy S. Submucosal uterine leiomyomas: diagnosis of prolapse into the cervix and vagina based on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(3):555–8.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.159.3.1503024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim JW, Lee CH, Kim KA, Park CM. Spontaneous prolapse of pedunculated uterine submucosal leiomyoma: usefulness of broccoli sign on CT and MR imaging. Clin Imaging. 2008;32(3):233–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2007.12.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington DS, Young HR. Tumours of the uterine corpus (Chapter 5). In: Kuramn RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH, editors. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organas. 4th ed. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 2014. p. 121–54.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawakami S, Togashi K, Konishi I, Kimura I, Fukuoka M, Mori T, et al. Red degeneration of uterine leiomyoma: MR appearance. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1994;18(6):925–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hillard PA. Benign diseases of the female reproductive tract: symptoms and signs. In: Berek J, editor. Novak’s gynecology. 13th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 351–420.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Upadhyaya NB, Doody MC, Googe PB. Histopathological changes in leiomyomata treated with leuprolide acetate. Fertil Steril. 1990;54(5):811–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uemura T, Mori J, Yoshimura Y, Minaguchi H. Treatment effects of GnRH agonist on the binding of estrogen and progesterone, and the histological findings of uterine leiomyomas. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;17(4):315–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oguchi O, Mori A, Kobayashi Y, Horiuchi A, Nikaido T, Fujii S. Prediction of histopathologic features and proliferative activity of uterine leiomyoma by magnetic resonance imaging prior to GnRH analogue therapy: correlation between T2-weighted images and effect of GnRH analogue. J Obstet Gynaecol (Tokyo 1995). 1995;21(2):107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mara M, Fucikova Z, Maskova J, Kuzel D, Haakova L. Uterine fibroid embolization versus myomectomy in women wishing to preserve fertility: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;126(2):226–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spies JB, Cooper JM, Worthington-Kirsch R, Lipman JC, Mills BB, Benenati JF. Outcome of uterine embolization and hysterectomy for leiomyomas: results of a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):22–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spies JB, Bruno J, Czeyda-Pommersheim F, Magee ST, Ascher SA, Jha RC. Long-term outcome of uterine artery embolization of leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(5 Pt 1):933–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katsumori T, Kasahara T, Kin Y, Nozaki T. Infarction of uterine fibroids after embolization: relationship between postprocedural enhanced MRI findings and long-term clinical outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31(1):66–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9187-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    deSouza NM, Williams AD. Uterine arterial embolization for leiomyomas: perfusion and volume changes at MR imaging and relation to clinical outcome. Radiology. 2002;222(2):367–74.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2222010584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pelage JP, Guaou NG, Jha RC, Ascher SM, Spies JB. Uterine fibroid tumors: long-term MR imaging outcome after embolization. Radiology. 2004;230(3):803–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitsumori A, Morimoto M, Matsubara S, Yamamoto M, Akamatsu N, Hiraki Y. MR appearance of adenomatoid tumor of the uterus. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(4):610–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meng Q, Zeng Q, Wu X, Wan Q, Lei Y, Song T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and pathologic findings of 26 cases with uterine adenomatoid tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(4):499–505.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Silverberg SG, Kurman RJ. Smooth muscle and other mesenchymal tumors. In: Rosai J, editor. Atlas of tumor pathology tumors of the uterine corpus and gestational trophoblastc disease. Third series. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1991. p. 113–52.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Takahashi M, Tanaka N, Katabuchi H, Miyazaki K, et al. Hyperintense uterine leiomyoma at T2-weighted MR imaging: differentiation with dynamic enhanced MR imaging and clinical implications. Radiology. 1993;189(3):721–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Hyperintense uterine myometrial masses on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: differentiation with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(6):834–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e318197ec6f.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Loffroy R, Nezzal N, Mejean N, Sagot P, Krause D. Lipoleiomyoma of the uterus: imaging features. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2008;66(2):73–5.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000127409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arkun R, Memis A, Akalin T, Ustun EE, Sabah D, Kandiloglu G. Liposarcoma of soft tissue: MRI findings with pathologic correlation. Skelet Radiol. 1997;26(3):167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaszar-Seibert DJ, Gauvin GP, Rogoff PA, Vittimberga FJ, Margolis S, Hilgenberg AD, et al. Intracardiac extension of intravenous leiomyomatosis. Radiology. 1988;168(2):409–10.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wray RC Jr, Dawkins H. Primary smooth muscle tumors of the inferior vena cava. Ann Surg. 1971;174(6):1009–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fasih N, Prasad Shanbhogue AK, Macdonald DB, Fraser-Hill MA, Papadatos D, Kielar AZ, et al. Leiomyomas beyond the uterus: unusual locations, rare manifestations. Radiographics. 2008;28(7):1931–48.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.287085095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hayasaka K, Tanaka Y, Fujii M, Himi K, Negishi N. Intravenous leiomyomatosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(1):83–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kawakami S, Sagoh T, Kumada H, Kimoto T, Togashi K, Nishimura K, et al. Intravenous leiomyomatosis of uterus: MR appearance. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991;15(4):686–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Preda L, Rizzo S, Gorone MS, Fasani R, Maggioni A, Bellomi M. MRI features of cotyledonoid dissecting leiomyoma of the uterus. Tumori. 2009;95(4):532–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolff M, Silva F, Kaye G. Pulmonary metastases (with admixed epithelial elements) from smooth muscle neoplasms. Report of nine cases, including three males. Am J Surg Pathol. 1979;3(4):325–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Vries K, Lyons EA, Ballard G, Levi CS, Lindsay DJ. Contractions of the inner third of the myometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;162(3):679–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lyons EA, Taylor PJ, Zheng XH, Ballard G, Levi CS, Kredentser JV. Characterization of subendometrial myometrial contractions throughout the menstrual cycle in normal fertile women. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(4):771–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Togashi K, Nakai A, Sugimura K. Anatomy and physiology of the female pelvis: MR imaging revisited. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(6):842–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakai A, Togashi K, Ueda H, Yamaoka T, Fujii S, Konishi J. Junctional zone on magnetic resonance imaging:continuous changes on ultrafast images. J Women’s Imaging. 2001;3(3):89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nishino M, Togashi K, Nakai A, Hayakawa K, Kanao S, Iwasaku K, et al. Uterine contractions evaluated on cine MR imaging in patients with uterine leiomyomas. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(1):142–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kido A, Ascher SM, Hahn W, Kishimoto K, Kashitani N, Jha RC, et al. 3 T MRI uterine peristalsis: comparison of symptomatic fibroid patients versus controls. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(5):468–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.12.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kido A, Ascher SM, Kishimoto K, Hahn W, Jha RC, Togashi K, et al. Comparison of uterine peristalsis before and after uterine artery embolization at 3-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):1431–5.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yoshino O, Hayashi T, Osuga Y, Orisaka M, Asada H, Okuda S, et al. Decreased pregnancy rate is linked to abnormal uterine peristalsis caused by intramural fibroids. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(10):2475–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yoshino O, Nishii O, Osuga Y, Asada H, Okuda S, Orisaka M, et al. Myomectomy decreases abnormal uterine peristalsis and increases pregnancy rate. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(1):63–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pattani SJ, Kier R, Deal R, Luchansky E. MRI of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13(2):331–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sahdev A, Sohaib SA, Jacobs I, Shepherd JH, Oram DH, Reznek RH. MR imaging of uterine sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(6):1307–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Okamoto Y, Yoshikawa H. Smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential and leiomyosarcomas of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(6):998–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schwartz LB, Zawin M, Carcangiu ML, Lange R, McCarthy S. Does pelvic magnetic resonance imaging differentiate among the histologic subtypes of uterine leiomyomata? Fertil Steril. 1998;70(3):580–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C, Morel A, Rouzier R, Carette MF, et al. How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2306–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2819-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Namimoto T, Yamashita Y, Awai K, Nakaura T, Yanaga Y, Hirai T, et al. Combined use of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted 3-T MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(11):2756–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1471-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kao YH, Saad U, Tan AE, Magsombol BM, Padhy AK. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT for the evaluation of suspected recurrent uterine leiomyosarcomas. Acta Radiol. 2011;52(4):463–6.  https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.100509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Koyama T, Togashi K, Konishi I, Kobayashi H, Ueda H, Kataoka ML, et al. MR imaging of endometrial stromal sarcoma: correlation with pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(3):767–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Furukawa R, Akahane M, Yamada H, Kiryu S, Sato J, Komatsu S, et al. Endometrial stromal sarcoma located in the myometrium with a low-intensity rim on T2-weighted images: report of three cases and literature review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(4):975–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fujii S, Kaneda S, Tsukamoto K, Kakite S, Kanasaki Y, Matsusue E, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of uterine endometrial stromal sarcoma: a report of 2 cases. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34(3):377–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181cfc676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cornfeld D, Israel G, Martel M, Weinreb J, Schwartz P, McCarthy S. MRI appearance of mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(1):241–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lakhman Y, Veeraraghavan H, Chaim J, Feier D, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, et al. Differentiation of uterine leiomyosarcoma from atypical leiomyoma: diagnostic accuracy of qualitative MR imaging features and feasibility of texture analysis. Eur Radiol. 2016;27(7):2903–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4623-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, Selmi M, Ng F, Sanghera B, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging. 2012;3(6):573–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0196-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nishizawa S, Inubushi M, Kido A, Miyagawa M, Inoue T, Shinohara K, et al. Incidence and characteristics of uterine leiomyomas with FDG uptake. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22(9):803–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0184-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tsujikawa T, Yoshida Y, Mori T, Kurokawa T, Fujibayashi Y, Kotsuji F, et al. Uterine tumors: pathophysiologic imaging with 16alpha-[18F]fluoro-17beta-estradiol and 18F fluorodeoxyglucose PET—initial experience. Radiology. 2008;248(2):599–605.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482071379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhao Z, Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kiyono Y, Mori T, Okazawa H. 18F-FES and 18F-FDG PET for differential diagnosis and quantitative evaluation of mesenchymal uterine tumors: correlation with immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(4):499–506.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.113472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reinhold C, Atri M, Mehio A, Zakarian R, Aldis AE, Bret PM. Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology. 1995;197(3):609–14.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Brosens JJ, de Souza NM, Barker FG, Paraschos T, Winston RM. Endovaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis uteri: identifying the predictive characteristics. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102(6):471–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199(1):151–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, Schruefer JJ, Bagley AS, Semelka RC, et al. Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;190(3):803–6.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.190.3.8115630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, Fujisawa I, Noma S, Kanaoka M, et al. Adenomyosis: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166(1 Pt 1):111–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Van Deerlin V. Adenomyosis: current concepts and imaging considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(2):437–41.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.170.2.9456960.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kataoka ML, Togashi K, Konishi I, Hatabu H, Morikawa K, Kojima N, et al. MRI of adenomyotic cyst of the uterus. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(4):555–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Troiano RN, Flynn SD, McCarthy S. Cystic adenomyosis of the uterus: MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8(6):1198–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sakamoto A. Subserosal adenomyosis: a possible variant of pelvic endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(1):198–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    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(2):114.e1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Khong SY, Bignardi T, Luscombe G, Lam A. Is pouch of Douglas obliteration a marker of bowel endometriosis? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):333–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.01.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Imaoka I, Ascher SM, Sugimura K, Takahashi K, Li H, Cuomo F, et al. MR imaging of diffuse adenomyosis changes after GnRH analog therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15(3):285–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Silverberg SG, Kurman RJ. Tumor of the uterine corpus and gestational trophoblastic disease. In: Rosai J, editor. Atlas of tumor pathology. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1992. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Shitano F, Kido A, Fujimoto K, Umeoka S, Himoto Y, Kiguchi K, et al. Decidualized adenomyosis during pregnancy and post delivery: three cases of magnetic resonance imaging findings. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38(4):851–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-013-9988-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T. MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics. 2005;25(1):21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.251045060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Motohara K, Tashiro H, Ohtake H, Saito F, Ohba T, Katabuchi H. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising in adenomyosis: elucidation by periodic magnetic resonance imaging evaluations. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(3):266–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-007-0725-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kataoka M, Togashi K, Kido A, Nakai A, Fujiwara T, Koyama T, et al. Dysmenorrhea: evaluation with cine-mode-display MR imaging—initial experience. Radiology. 2005;235(1):124–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Togashi K, Kawakami S, Kimura I, Asato R, Okumura R, Fukuoka M, et al. Uterine contractions: possible diagnostic pitfall at MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(6):889–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Song SE, Sung DJ, Park BJ, Kim MJ, Cho SB, Kim KA. MR imaging features of uterine adenomyomas. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(4):483–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-010-9640-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations