open access

Vol 88, No 3 (2017)
Research paper
Published online: 2017-03-31
Get Citation

Impact of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging findings in the indication of uterine artery embolization in the treatment of myoma

Norma Maria Tenório Brito Pires, Emmanuelle Tenório Godoi, Dinaldo Cavalcanti Oliveira, Simone Cristina Soares Brandão, Carlos Coutinho Abath, Pedro Pires, Edward Araujo Júnior
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0024
·
Pubmed: 28397200
·
Ginekol Pol 2017;88(3):129-133.

open access

Vol 88, No 3 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2017-03-31

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the impact of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in the indication for uterine-artery embolization in women with fibroids, as well as the correlation between MRI and ultrasound (US) examinations for diagnosing adenomyosis.

Material and methods: A retrospective observational study was performed through the analysis of the medical records of 263 women referred for uterine-artery embolization as treatment for fibroids after undergoing US and MRI examinations. To compare uterine volume and fibroid measurement in US and MRI, the Wilcoxon test was used; for the number of fibroids, the McNemar test was used. The kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between US and MRI findings for diagnosing adenomyosis.

Results: The mean age of patients was 37.9 ± 6.8 years and 191 (72.6%) were nulliparous. Forty-three patients with adenomyosis associated with fibroid were diagnosed by MRI; US indicated the presence of adenomyosis in 12 (4.56%) women. There was agreement between MRI and US in the diagnosis of adenomyosis in 218/263 (82.9%) patients (p < 0.05). In the US examination, the mean uterine volume was lower (389 ± 340.8 cm³) than that observed in MRI (472.2 ± 415.9 cm³; p < 0.001). Regarding the number of fibroids, MRI showed a greater number of patients with multiple fibroids (68.8% vs. 57.4%, MRI and US, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In women with fibroids referred for uterine-artery embolization, MRI findings led to the revision of the initial diagnosis in 17.1% cases. US showed a lower sensitivity for diagnosing adenomyosis than MRI.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the impact of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in the indication for uterine-artery embolization in women with fibroids, as well as the correlation between MRI and ultrasound (US) examinations for diagnosing adenomyosis.

Material and methods: A retrospective observational study was performed through the analysis of the medical records of 263 women referred for uterine-artery embolization as treatment for fibroids after undergoing US and MRI examinations. To compare uterine volume and fibroid measurement in US and MRI, the Wilcoxon test was used; for the number of fibroids, the McNemar test was used. The kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between US and MRI findings for diagnosing adenomyosis.

Results: The mean age of patients was 37.9 ± 6.8 years and 191 (72.6%) were nulliparous. Forty-three patients with adenomyosis associated with fibroid were diagnosed by MRI; US indicated the presence of adenomyosis in 12 (4.56%) women. There was agreement between MRI and US in the diagnosis of adenomyosis in 218/263 (82.9%) patients (p < 0.05). In the US examination, the mean uterine volume was lower (389 ± 340.8 cm³) than that observed in MRI (472.2 ± 415.9 cm³; p < 0.001). Regarding the number of fibroids, MRI showed a greater number of patients with multiple fibroids (68.8% vs. 57.4%, MRI and US, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In women with fibroids referred for uterine-artery embolization, MRI findings led to the revision of the initial diagnosis in 17.1% cases. US showed a lower sensitivity for diagnosing adenomyosis than MRI.

Get Citation

Keywords

uterine-artery embolization, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, adenomyosis

About this article
Title

Impact of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging findings in the indication of uterine artery embolization in the treatment of myoma

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 88, No 3 (2017)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

129-133

Published online

2017-03-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2017.0024

Pubmed

28397200

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2017;88(3):129-133.

Keywords

uterine-artery embolization
magnetic resonance imaging
ultrasound
adenomyosis

Authors

Norma Maria Tenório Brito Pires
Emmanuelle Tenório Godoi
Dinaldo Cavalcanti Oliveira
Simone Cristina Soares Brandão
Carlos Coutinho Abath
Pedro Pires
Edward Araujo Júnior

References (18)
  1. Baird DD, Dunson DB. Why is parity protective for uterine fibroids? Epidemiology. 2003; 14(2): 247–250.
  2. Malartic C, Morel O, Rivain AL, et al. Evaluation of symptomatic uterine fibroids in candidates for uterine artery embolization: comparison between ultrasonographic and MR imaging findings in 68 consecutive patients. Clin Imaging. 2013; 37(1): 83–90.
  3. Khan AT, Shehmar M, Gupta JK. Uterine fibroids: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6: 95–114.
  4. Taran FA, Brown HL, Stewart EA. Racial diversity in uterine leiomyoma clinical studies. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(4): 1500–1503.
  5. Omary RA, Vasireddy S, Chrisman HB, et al. The effect of pelvic MR imaging on the diagnosis and treatment of women with presumed symptomatic uterine fibroids. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002; 13(11): 1149–1153.
  6. Pelage JP, Le Dref O, Soyer P, et al. Fibroid-related menorrhagia: treatment with superselective embolization of the uterine arteries and midterm follow-up. Radiology. 2000; 215(2): 428–431.
  7. Chittawar PB, Kamath MS. Review of nonsurgical/minimally invasive treatments and open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 27(6): 391–397.
  8. Early HM, McGahan JP, Scoutt LM, et al. Pitfalls of Sonographic Imaging of Uterine Leiomyoma. Ultrasound Q. 2016; 32(2): 164–174.
  9. Rajan DK, Margau R, Kroll RR, et al. Clinical utility of ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for deciding to proceed with uterine artery embolization for presumed symptomatic fibroids. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(1): 57–62.
  10. Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003; 9(2): 139–147.
  11. Stamatopoulos CP, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF, et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of adenomyosis and myomas of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19(5): 620–626.
  12. Laios A, Baharuddin N, Iliou K, et al. Uterine artery embolization for treatment of symptomatic fibroids; a single institution experience. Hippokratia. 2014; 18(3): 258–261.
  13. Stoelinga B, Huirne J, Heymans MW, et al. The estimated volume of the fibroid uterus: a comparison of ultrasound and bimanual examination versus volume at MRI or hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 184: 89–96.
  14. Toor SS, Tan KT, Simons ME, et al. Clinical failure after uterine artery embolization: evaluation of patient and MR imaging characteristics. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008; 19(5): 662–667.
  15. Silberzweig JE, Powell DK, Matsumoto AH, et al. Management of Uterine Fibroids: A Focus on Uterine-sparing Interventional Techniques. Radiology. 2016; 280(3): 675–692.
  16. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: A Clinical Review of a Challenging Gynecologic Condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(2): 164–185.
  17. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, et al. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89(11): 1374–1384.
  18. Puente JM, Fabris A, Patel J, et al. Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016; 14(1): 60.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl