Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of magnetic resonance in deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the accuracy of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of deeply infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).

Methods

A comprehensive search of the Medline, Pubmed, Lilacs, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biomed Central, and ISI Web of Science databases was conducted from January 1990 to December 2013. The medical subject headings (MeSHs) and text words “deep endometriosis”, “deeply infiltrating endometriosis”, “DIE”, “magnetic resonance”, and “MRI” were searched. Studies that compared the parameters of pelvic MRIs with those of paraffin-embedded sections for the diagnosis of DIE were included.

Results

Twenty studies were analyzed, which included 1,819 women. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated across eight subgroups: for all sites, these were 0.83 and 0.90, respectively; for the bladder, 0.64 and 0.98, respectively; for the intestine, 0.84 and 0.97, respectively; for the pouch of Douglas, 0.89 and 0.94, respectively; for the rectosigmoid, 0.83 and 0.88, respectively; for the rectovaginal, 0.77 and 0.95, respectively; for the uterosacral ligaments, 0.85 and 0.80, respectively; and for the vagina and the posterior vaginal fornix, 0.82 and 0.82, respectively.

Conclusion

In summary, pelvic MRI is a useful preoperative test for predicting the diagnosis of multiple sites of deep infiltrating endometriosis.

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. Bronsen IA (1998) Endometriosis. Current issues in diagnosis and medical management. J Reprod Med 43:281–286

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adamson GD, Kennedy SH, Hummelshoj L (2010) Creating solutions in endometriosis: global collaboration through the World Endometriosis Research Foundation. J Endometriosis 2:3–6

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nnoaham KE, Hummelshoj L, Kennedy SH, Jenkinson C, Zondervan KT (2012) World Endometriosis Research Foundation Women’s Health Symptom Survey Consortium. Developing symptom-based predictive models of endometriosis as a clinical screening tool: results from a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 98:692–701

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Viganò P, Parazzini F, Somigliana E, Vercellini P (2004) Endometriosis: epidemiology and aetiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 18(2):177–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Mezzetti TP Jr (2001) Endometriosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. RadioGraphics 21:193–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hudelist G, Oberwinkler KH, Singer CF et al (2009) Combination of transvaginal sonography and clinical examination for preoperative diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod 24:1018–1024

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1997) Revised American Society for reproductive medicine classification of endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril 67:817–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A (2012) Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril 98:564–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chamié LP, Blasbalg R, Pereira RM, Warmbrand G, Serafini PC (2011) Findings of pelvic endometriosis at transvaginal, US, MR imaging, and laparoscopy. RadioGraphics 31:E77–E100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Del Frate C, Girometti R, Pittino M, Del Frate G, Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C (2006) Deep retroperitoneal pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics 26:1705–1718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hottat N, Larrousse C, Anaf V, Noël JC, Matos C, Absil J, Metens T (2009) Endometriosis: contribution of 3.0-T pelvic MR imaging in preoperative assessment—initial results. Radiology 253:126–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siegelman ES, Oliver ER (2012) MR imaging of endometriosis: ten imaging pearls. RadioGraphics 32:1675–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Medeiros LR, Rosa MI, Cunha Filho JS (2013) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO:CRD42013005657. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013005657

  15. Guerriero S, Spiga S, Ajossa S, Peddes C, Perniciano M, Soggiu B, De Cecco CN, Laghi A, Melis GB, Saba L (2013) Role of imaging in the management of endometriosis. Minerva Ginecol 65:143–166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J (2005) No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:19

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM; QUADAS-2 Group (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG (1999) Some common problems in medical research. In: Altman DG (ed) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman, London, pp 396–439

  19. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F (1994) Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 120:667–676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schlesselman JJ, Stolley PD (1982) Case control studies: design, conduct, analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 174–177

    Google Scholar 

  21. Littenberg B, Moses LE (1993) Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports. Med Decis Making 13:313–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing, London, England, pp 248–282

  23. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten R, Bossuy PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produce informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gatsonis C, Paliwal P (2006) Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:271–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bangdiwala S, Haedo A, Natal M, Villaveces A (2008) The agreement chart as an alternative to receiver-operating characteristic curve for diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 61:866–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Review Manager (RevMan) (2012) [Computer program]. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration

  28. Kinkel K, Chapron C, Balleyguier C, Fritel X, Dubuisson JB, Moreau JF (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod 14:1080–1086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bazot M, Lafont C, Rouzier R, Roseau G, Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Camagna O, Dhainaut C, Dupuis O, Soncini E (2004) Surgical management of rectovaginal septum endometriosis from a continuous series of 50 cases. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chapron C, Vieira M, Chopin N, Balleyguier C, Barakat H, Dumontier I, Roseau G, Fauconnier A, Foulot H, Dousset B (2004) Accuracy of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectal involvement for patients presenting with deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24:175–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Takeuchi H, Kuwatsuru R, Kitade M, Sakurai A, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, Kinoshita K (2005) A novel technique using magnetic resonance imaging jelly for evaluation of rectovaginal endometriosis. Fertil Steril 83:442–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abrao MS, Gonçalves MO, Dias JA Jr, Podgaec S, Chamie LP, Blasbalg R (2007) Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22:3092–3097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Camagna O, Dhainaut C, Dupuis O, Soncini E, Martin B, Palazzo L, Chosidow D, Madelenat P (2004) Surgical management of rectovaginal septum endometriosis from a continuous series of 50 cases. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32:199–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bazot M, Bornier C, Dubernard G, Roseau G, Cortez A, Daraï E (2007) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography for the prediction of location of deep pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22:1457–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bazot M, Lafont C, Rouzier R, Roseau G, Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination, transvaginal sonography, rectal endoscopic sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose deep infiltrating endometriosis. Fertil Steril 92:1825–1833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chamié LP, Blasbalg R, Gonçalves MO, Carvalho FM, Abrão MS, de Oliveira IS (2009) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and preoperative assessment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 106:198–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Faccioli N, Foti G, Manfredi R, Mainardi P, Spoto E, Ruffo G, Minelli L, Mucelli RP (2010) Evaluation of colonic involvement in endometriosis: double-contrast barium enema vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 35:414–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grasso RF, Di Giacomo V, Sedati P, Sizzi O, Florio G, Faiella E, Rossetti A, Del Vescovo R, Zobel BB (2010) Diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal 3D ultrasonography. Abdom Imaging 35:716–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bazot M, Gasner A, Ballester M, Daraï E (2011) Value of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images to assess uterosacral ligament endometriosis. Hum Reprod 26:346–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bazot M, Gasner A, Lafont C, Ballester M, Daraï E (2011) Deep pelvic endometriosis: limited additional diagnostic value of postcontrast in comparison with conventional MR images. Eur J Radiol 80:331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fiaschetti V, Crusco S, Meschini A, Cama V, Di Vito L, Marziali M, Piccione E, Calabria F, Simonetti G (2012) Deeply infiltrating endometriosis: evaluation of retro-cervical space on MRI after vaginal opacification. Eur J Radiol 81:3638–3645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Saba L, Guerriero S, Sulcis R, Pilloni M, Ajossa S, Melis G, Mallarini G (2012) MRI and “tenderness guided” transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of recto-sigmoid endometriosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:352–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Saccardi C, Cosmi E, Borghero A, Tregnaghi A, Dessole S, Litta P (2012) Comparison between transvaginal sonography, saline contrast sonovaginography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40:464–469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bazot M, Stivalet A, Daraï E, Coudray C, Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E (2013) Comparison of 3D and 2D FSE T2-weighted MRI in the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis: preliminary results. Clin Radiol 68:47–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Krüger K, Behrendt K, Niedobitek-Kreuter G, Koltermann K, Ebert AD (2013) Location-dependent value of pelvic MRI in the preoperative diagnosis of endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 169:93–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Scardapane A, Lorusso F, Bettocchi S, Moschetta M, Fiume M, Vimercati A, Pepe ML, Angelelli G, Stabile Ianora AA (2013) Deep pelvic endometriosis: accuracy of pelvic MRI completed by MR colonography. Radiol Med 118:323–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gonçalves MO, Podgaec S, Dias JA Jr, Gonzales M, Abrão MS (2010) Transvaginal ultrasonography with bowel preparation is able to predict the number of lesions and rectosigmoid layers affected in cases of deep endometriosis, defining surgical strategy. Hum Reprod 25:665–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Marchino GL, Gennarelli G, Enria R, Bongioanni F, Lipari G, Massobrio M (2005) Diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis with use of macroscopic versus histologic findings. Fertil Steril 84:12–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Coutinho A Jr, Bittencourt LK, Pires CE, Junqueira F, Lima CM, Coutinho E, Domingues MA, Domingues RC, Marchiori E (2011) MR imaging in deep pelvic endometriosis: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 31:549–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Garry R (1997) Laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: the treatment of choice? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:513–515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Griffiths AN, Koutsouridou RN, Penketh RJ (2007) Rectovaginal endometriosis—a frequently missed diagnosis. J Obstet Gynaecol 27:605–607

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Anaf V, Simon P, El Nakadi I, Fayt I, Buxant F, Simonart T, Peny MO, Noel JC (2000) Relationship between endometriotic foci and nerves in rectovaginal endometriotic nodules. Hum Reprod 15:1744–1750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Reitsma JB, Rujes AW, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ (2009) Assessing methodological quality, chap 9. In: Deek JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org. Accessed 24 April 2014

Download references

Acknowledgment

This review was funded by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil. The sponsor of this study had no role in the study’s design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postgraduate Program in Medicine, Medical Sciences at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Lídia Rossi Medeiros & João Sabino da Cunha Filho

  2. Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, Laboratory of Epidemiology of the University of Extremo Sul Catarinense (UNESC), Criciuma, SC, Brazil

    Maria Inês Rosa & Maria Eduarda Reis

  3. Residency Program in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Marieta Konder Bornhausen Maternity, Itajai, SC, Brazil

    Bruno Rosa Silva

  4. Laboratory of Epidemiology of the University of Extremo Sul Catarinense (UNESC), Criciuma, SC, Brazil

    Maria Inês Rosa, Carla Sasso Simon & Eduardo Ronconi Dondossola

  5. Rua Cruz e Souza, 510, Bairro Pio Correa, Criciuma, SC, 88811-550, Brazil

    Maria Inês Rosa

Authors
  1. Lídia Rossi Medeiros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Inês Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Rosa Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Eduarda Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carla Sasso Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eduardo Ronconi Dondossola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. João Sabino da Cunha Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Inês Rosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Medeiros, L.R., Rosa, M.I., Silva, B.R. et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291, 611–621 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3470-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3470-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation