Assessing The Role and Accuracy of Ultrasonographic Imaging in The Diagnosis of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: A Cross-Sectional Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Arash Women Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Reproductive Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Al-Zahra Hospital, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

3 School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Internal Medicine Department, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is described as an endometriotic tissue that penetrates more than 5 mm under the peritoneal surface. It’s suggested that trans vaginal sonography (TVS) is 79% sensitive and 94% specific in the assessment of intestinal DIE. Considering the possibility that DIE ultrasonography (rectal and\or vaginal ultrasonography) might be more accurate, we designed this study to assess this study to evaluate the accuracy of DIE ultrasonography.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we designed and conducted this study from 2019 to 2020 on patients suspected of severe endometriosis. Our patients underwent ultrasonographic imaging and based on the results became candidates for surgery. We compared histopathological results with sonographic findings using crosstabulation and chi-square tests were used to measure accuracy. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results: Following pathological assessments of 109 cases, 97 cases had ovarian endometrioma, 42 cases had intestinal involvement and 56 cases had uterosacral DIE. The results for accuracy were as the following; uterosacral ligament (USL) involvement SE: 96.4% and SP: 59.1%; intestinal involvement SE: 97.6% and SP: 73.8%; and Cul de sac involvement with SE: 100% and SP: 50.8%. With regards to ovarian endometrioma, ultrasonographic imaging was 99.0% sensitive and 84.6% specific. With regards to intestinal involvement, ultrasonography performed a reliable overall diagnosis (97.6% sensitive and 73.8% specific). However, the results showed lower accuracy regarding the level of intestinal involvement. The accuracy for other sites and cavities was low except for ovarian endometrioma.
Conclusion: The results of the present study demonstrated that pre-operative TVS and Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) can be a helpful paraclinical tool in the assessment and diagnosis of DIE and endometriosis in general and particularly with adnexal and bowel lesions, it can have some shortcomings with respect to cul de sac and USLs.

Keywords

References

1. Parasar P, Ozcan P, Terry KL. Endometriosis: epidemiology, diagnosis and clinical management. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017; 6(1): 34-41.
2. Berek JS. Berek and Novak’s gynecology essentials. 1st ed. USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2020.
3. Hadfield R, Mardon H, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis: a survey of women from the USA and the UK. Hum Reprod. 1996; 11(4): 878-880.
4. Young SW, Groszmann Y, Dahiya N, Caserta M, Yi J, Wasson M, et al. Sonographer-acquired ultrasound protocol for deep endometriosis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020; 45(6): 1659-1669.
5. Bazot M, Daraï E. Diagnosis of deep endometriosis: clinical examination, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and other techniques. Fertil Steril. 2017; 108(6): 886-894.
6. Halis G, Mechsner S, Ebert AD. The diagnosis and treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010; 107(25): 446-455.
7. Turocy JM, Benacerraf BR. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: a review. J Clin Ultrasound. 2017; 45(6): 313-318.
8. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, Chapron C. Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16(2): 285-298.
9. Menakaya U, Reid S, Lu C, Bassem G, Infante F, Condous G. Performance of ultrasound‐based endometriosis staging system (UBESS) for predicting level of complexity of laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(6): 786-795.
10. Menakaya UA, Adno A, Lanzarone V, Johnson NP, Condous G. Integrating the concept of advanced gynaecological imaging for endometriosis. ANZJOG. 2015; 55(5): 409-412.
11. Tosti C, Pinzauti S, Santulli P, Chapron C, Petraglia F. Pathogenetic mechanisms of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Reprod Sci. 2015; 22(9): 1053-1059.
12. Ahn SH, Monsanto SP, Miller C, Singh SS, Thomas R, Tayade C. Pathophysiology and immune dysfunction in endometriosis. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015: 795976.
13. Bulun SE. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3): 268-279.
14. Raiza LCP, Bianchi P, Cordioli E, et al. Prevalence of sonographic signs of deep infiltrative endometriosis amongwomen submitted to routine transvaginal sonography. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(7): S27.
15. Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Dubuisson JB, Barakat H, Vieira M, Bréart G. Deep infiltrating endometriosis: relation between severity of dysmenorrhoea and extent of disease. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18(4): 760-766.
16. Holland T, Hoo W, Mavrelos D, Saridogan E, Cutner A, Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of assessment of severity of pelvic endometriosis using transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41(2): 210-215.
17. Holland TK, Cutner A, Saridogan E, Mavrelos D, Pateman K, Jurkovic D. Ultrasound mapping of pelvic endometriosis: does the location and number of lesions affect the diagnostic accuracy? A multicentre diagnostic accuracy study. BMC Womens Health. 2013; 13: 43.
18. Park SB, Kim JK, Cho KS. Sonography of endometriosis in infrequent sites. J Clin Ultrasound 2008; 36(2): 91-97.
19. 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.
20. Bushberg JT, Scibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3th ed. USA; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2011.
International Journal of Fertility and Sterility
Volume 16, Issue 4
October 2022
Pages 263-267

Files

Cited by

Share

How to cite

Statistics