ROLE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN EVALUATION OF UTERINE PATHOLOGIES AND ITS CORRELATION WITH ULTRASOUND
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2023v16i9.47795Keywords:
Fibroid, Adenomyosis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Ultrasonographic.Abstract
Objective: Uterine pathologies, both benign and malignant, are common among reproductive age females and postmenopausal females. Herein, we aim to assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of uterine pathologies and to correlate them with ultrasonographic findings (USG).
Methods: We conducted a prospective study in the Department of Radiodiagnosis at Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. It included 45 females who were referred from department of obstetrics and gynecology with clinical suspicion of uterine pathologies. All the patients underwent both USG and MRI, results were compiled and statistical tests applied.
Results: The mean (±SD) age of patients was 38.9±10.8 years. About 82% of the females were premenopausal. Nineteen females were diagnosed with fibroids, nine had adenomyosis, and two patients had endometrial polyps. Five of each were histopathologically proven cases of cervical and endometrial carcinoma. Four patients were diagnosed with Mullerian anomalies. MRI could diagnose more number of fibroids and in more number of patients. On USG, adenomyosis was falsely diagnosed in one patient and was reported as normal in one other patient. In cases of endometrial carcinoma, myometrial invasion was better predicted through MRI. Similarly, in cases of cervical carcinoma, parametrial extension was underdiagnosed by USG alone. MRI detected bicornuate bicollis uterus and septate uterus in two cases each. Very good correlation was observed between the USG and MRI findings with Kappa coefficient of 0.823 (p<0.001).
Conclusion: MRI is the radiological imaging of choice in patients with suspected uterine pathologies and correlates well with USG. Therefore, USG and MRI should be combined together in case of diagnostic dilemma for better decision-making and patient management
Downloads
References
Hubert J, Bergin D. Imaging the female pelvis: When should MRI be considered? Appl Radiol 2008;37:9-24. doi: 10.37549/AR1578
Murase E, Siegelman ES, Outwater EK, Perez-Jaffe LA, Tureck RW. Uterine leiomyomas: Histopathologic features, MR imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Radiographics 1999;19:1179-97. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se131179, PMID 10489175
Bailey CL, Ueland FR, Land GL, DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Kryscio RJ, et al. The malignant potential of small cystic ovarian tumors in women over 50 years of age. Gynecol Oncol 1998;69:3-7. doi: 10.1006/ gyno.1998.4965, PMID 9570990
Saini A, Dina R, McIndoe GA, Soutter WP, Gishen P, deSouza NM. Characterization of adnexal masses with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1004-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.3.01841004, PMID 15728633
Levens ED, Wesley R, Premkumar A, Blocker W, Nieman LK. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasound for determining fibroid burden: Implications for research and clinical care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:537.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.12.037, PMID 19268886
Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, Weadock WJ, Murray JP, Johnson TD, et al. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:732-40. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.05.0905, PMID 16928938
Patel P, Vaishnav K, Qureshi Z. Magnetic resonance evaluation & characterization of gynaecological pathologies with their ultrasound correlation.
Shankar MP, Kumar SR, Dhar T, Venkateshwaran KN, Balaji R. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of uterine pathologies and its correlation with ultrasound. Int J Anat Radiol Surg 2019;8:RO28-32.
Munusamy MM, Sheelaa WG, Lakshmi VP. Clinical presentation and prevalence of uterine fibroids: A 3-year study in 3-decade rural south Indian women. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6:5596-602. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20175288
Gupta S, Goel G, Agrawal S, Garg P, Khanuja E. Clinical andultrasonological features of adenomyosis and its histopathological correlation. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2016;5:3283-9. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20163158
Boeckstaens S, Dewalheyns S, Heremans R, Vikram R, Timmerman D, Van den Bosch T, et al. Signs and symptoms associated with uterine cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women. Heliyon 2020;6:e05372. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05372, PMID 33204876
Sachdev Y, Kawade R, Vikhe G, Mahajan R. Role of MRI in evaluation of cervical cancer and it’s clinical & histopathological correlation. Med Res Chron 2022;9:459-65.
Daga SR, Phatak SV. Ultrasound evaluation of uterine leiomyoma in perimenopausal females with histopathological correlation. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2020;9:562-5. doi: 10.14260/jemds/2020/125
Tsuda H, Kawabata M, Nakamoto O, Yamamoto K. Clinical predictors in the natural history of uterine leiomyoma: Preliminary study. J Ultrasound Med 1998;17:17-20. doi: 10.7863/jum.1998.17.1.17, PMID 9440103
Bromley B, Shipp TD, Benacerraf B. Adenomyosis: Sonographic findings and diagnostic accuracy. J Ultrasound Med 2000;19:529-34; quiz 535-6. doi: 10.7863/jum.2000.19.8.529, PMID 10944038
Kwon TH, Ji EK, Hong HS, Kwak JY, Kim Kim WY. P128: Ultrasonographic findings of endometrial polyp. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22 Suppl 1:105-7.
Epstein E, Fischerova D, Valentin L, Testa AC, Franchi D, Sladkevicius P, et al. Ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer as defined by International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) consensus nomenclature: Prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51:818-28. doi: 10.1002/ uog.18909, PMID 28944985
Alcazar JL, Pineda L, Corral MA, Orozco R, Utrilla-Layna J, Juez L, et al. Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: A comparisonof six different approaches. J Gynecol Oncol 2015;26:201-7.
Li J, Gu C, Zheng H, Geng X, Yang Z, Zhou L, et al. Ultrasonographic diagnosis in rare primary cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31:1535-40. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002860, PMID 34711665
Jondal DE, Wang J, Chen J, Gorny KR, Felmlee J, Hesly G, et al. Uterine fibroids: Correlations between MRI appearance and stiffness via magnetic resonance elastography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43:1456-63. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1314-1, PMID 28952003
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;16:2427-33. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427, PMID 11679533
Tao J, Wang Y, Liang Y, Zhang A. Evaluation and monitoring of endometrial cancer based on magnetic resonance imaging features of deep learning. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2022;2022:5198592. doi: 10.1155/2022/5198592, PMID 35360265
Zand KR, Reinhold C, Abe H, Maheshwari S, Mohamed A, Upegui D. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 2007;7:69- 76. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0011, PMID 17535778
Goyal A, Mehta D, Mangalhara NK, Poonia S. A comparative study between magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal sonography for evaluation of uterine fibroid using histopathology as a gold standard. Int J Res Med Sci 2020;8:2173-9. doi: 10.18203/2320-6012. ijrms20202262
Azhar MA. MR evaluation of uterine mass lesions in correlation with transabdominal, transvaginal ultrasound using HPE as a gold standard. MedPulse Int J Radiol 2022;21:45-51..
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Aayush Bansal, Dr. Simmi Bhatnagar, Manoj Mathur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
