Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ultrasound Int Open 2018; 04(03): E85-E90
DOI: 10.1055/a-0647-1575
Original Article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Imaging for Diagnosis of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis – A Critical Appraisal

Judith Berger
1   Ziekenhuis Bronovo, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Den Haag, Netherlands
4   Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, gynecology, Leiden, Netherlands
,
Onno Henneman
2   Ziekenhuis Bronovo, Radiology, Den Haag, Netherlands
,
Johann Rhemrev
3   Ziekenhuis Bronovo, Gynecology, Den Haag, Netherlands
,
Maddy Smeets
3   Ziekenhuis Bronovo, Gynecology, Den Haag, Netherlands
,
Frank Willem Jansen
4   Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, gynecology, Leiden, Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 22 November 2017
revised 13 April 2018

accepted 12 May 2018

Publication Date:
24 September 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose

It was the aim of our study to evaluate this procedure using pelvic anatomical landmarks in order to assess the accuracy of fusion imaging and to critically evaluate the applicability in daily practice.

Methods

In a prospective, single center study, 10 patients with clinical signs of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) were selected. We measured the distance between the landmark organ and the target shown by the software system (measurement 1). Measurement 2 depicts the distance between the landmark and the nearest calibration point. The calibration inaccuracy was measured as a third type of measurement (measurement 3).

Results

Measurement 1: the average distance between the organ landmark to the target was 13.6 mm (range: 0–96 mm). Measurement 2: in 31 of the 40 attempts (77.5 %), we could measure the distance from the landmark organ to the nearest calibration point. The average distance was 34.4 mm (range: 0–69 mm).

Measurement 3: A perfect match was seen in 6 of 20 attempts (30.0 %). There was a deviation in 14 of the 20 attempts (70.0 %). The mean distance was 11.1 mm (range: 6–23 mm). Conclusion Although very promising, MRI-ultrasound fusion imaging (MUFI) currently cannot be readily implemented into daily practice as a routine evaluation of DIE.

 

  • References

  • 1 Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L, Adamson GD, Keckstien J, Taylor HS, Abrao MS, Bush D, Kiesel L, Tamimi R, Scharpe-Timms KL, Rombauts L, Giudice LC. World endometriosis society consensus on the classification of endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2017; 2: 15-324
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Chapron D, Fauconnier A, Vierira M, Barakat H, Dousset B, Pansini V, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Dubuisson JB. Anatomical distribution of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: surgical implications and proposition for a classification. Human Reprod 2003; 18: 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Holland TK, Cutner A. Saridogan 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bazot M, Daraï E. Sonography and MR imaging for the assessment of deep pelvic endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005; 12: 178-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Hudelist G, English J, Thomas AE, Tinelli A, Singer CF, Keckstein J. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for non-invasive diagnosis of bowel endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 3: 257-263
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Orozco R, Perniciano M, Jurado M, Melis GB, Alcazar JL. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in the rectosigmoid: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Gerada M, Virgilio B, Angioni S, Melis GB. Diagnostic value of transvaginal ‘tenderness-guided’ ultrasonography for the prediction of location of deep endometriosis. Human Reprod 2008; 23: 2452-2457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Staettner S, Tammaa A, Tinelli A, Sparic R, Keckstein J. Uterine sliding sign: a simple sonographic predictor for presence of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 692-695
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Okaro E, Condous G, Khalid A, Timmerman D, Amye L, Huffel SV, Bourne T. The use of ultrasound-based ‘soft markers’ for the prediction of pelvic pathology in women with chronic pelvic pain – can we reduce the need for laparoscopy?. BJOG 2006; 113: 251-256
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Reid S, Lu C, Casikar I, Reid G, Abbott J, Cario G, Chou D, Kowalski D, Cooper M, Condous G. Prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration in women with suspected endometriosis using a new real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound technique: the sliding sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 685-691
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Guerriero S, Condous G, van den Bosch T, Valentin L, Leione FP, Van Schoubroeck D, Exacoustos C, Installé AJ, Martins WP, Abraoi MS, Hudelist G, Bazot M, Alcazar JL, Conçalves MO, Pascual MA, Ajossa S, Savelli L, Dunham R, Reid S, Menakaya U, Bourne T, Ferrero S, Leon M, Bignardi T, Holland T, Jurkovic D, Benacerraf B, Osuga Y, Somigliana E, Timmerman D. Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 318-332
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kaplan I, Oldenburg NE, Meskell P, Blake M, Church P, Holupka EJ. Real time MRI-ultrasound image guided stereotactic prostate biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 3: 295-299
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2014; 6: 903-911
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wu J, Ji A, Xie B, Wang X, Zhu Y, Wang J, Yu Y, Zheng X, Liu B, Xie L. Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? An updated meta- and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 2015; 41: 43571-43580
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BPh, Mulders PFA, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int 2015; 3: 392-400
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Deng FM, Melamed J, Zhou M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol 2015; 6: 1601-1606
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Millischer AE, Salomon LJ, Santulli P, Borghese B, Sousset B, Chapron C. Fusion imaging for evaluation of deep infiltrating endometriosis: feasibility and preliminary results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46: 109-117
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Park HJ, Lee MW, Lee MH, Hwang J, Kang TW, Lim S, Rhim H, Lim HK. Fusion imaging-guided percutaneous biopsy of focal hepatic lesions with poor conspicuity on conventional sonography. J ultrasound med 2013; 32: 1557-1563
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Piessens S, Healey M, Maher P, Tsaltas J, Rombouts L. Can anyone screen for deep infiltrating endometriosis with transvaginal ultrasound?. Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 5: 462-468
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Yavariabdi A, Bartoli A, Samir C, Artigues M, Canis M. Mapping and characterizing endometrial implants by registering 2D transvaginal ultrasound to 3D pelvic magnetic resonance images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015; 45: 11-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar