Does the clinical information play a role in the magnetic resonance diagnostic confidence analysis of ovarian and deep endometriosis?

OBJECTIVE:: Some recent studies have explored how the experience in the observers change their performance in the endometriosis detection using MRI but the effects of the clinical information remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of the clinical information in the diagnostic confidence in the MRI diagnosis of endometriosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS:: Institutional Review Board was obtained. This study is compliant to STARD method. 80 patients (mean age 32 years; range 19 - 46 years) who had undergone MRI study and surgery for suspected endometriosis were retrospectively evaluated. MRI exams were performed with a 1.5 T scanner and the following five locations were assessed: ovary, anterior compartment, vaginal fornix, utero-sacral ligaments, and Rectum\Sigmoid\Pouch of Douglas. Data sets were evaluated twice on a 5-point scale by four radiologists with different level of expertise; the first time blinded to the clinical information and the second time, after 3 months together with the clinical chart. Statistical analysis included receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, the Cohen weighted test and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, LR+ and LR-. RESULTS:: A total of 140 localization of endometriosis (47 endometriomas and 93 endometriotic nodules) were found. The pairwise comparison demonstrated that in all cases the presence of clinical information improved the Az value. The concordance analysis indicated a mixed pattern from modest agreement (weighted κ value 0.556 for anterior compartment) to excellent agreement values (weighted κ value 0.867 for ovarian endometriomas). CONCLUSION:: The results of our study suggest that clinical information is useful in diagnosing endometriosis in general anterior compartment, but not in other locations. Less experienced radiologists (resident) may benefit from it at utero-sacral ligaments or Rectum\Sigmoid\Pouch of Douglas. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: In this era of sometimes indiscriminate use of diagnostic methods, it is important to emphasis the context for interpretation of diagnostic results. Our paper confirms that clinical information is useful in diagnosing endometriosis.

Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Comparison Between 2-Dimensional Ultrasonography (US), 3-Dimensional US, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) transvaginal ultrasonography (US) in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for identification of deep infiltrating endometriosis. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 159 premenopausal women who underwent surgery for a clinical suspicion of deep infiltrating endometriosis were prospectively enrolled. All women underwent 2DUS, 3DUS, and MRI. The following 3 locations of deep endometriosis were considered: (1) intestinal; (2) other posterior lesions (retrocervical septum, rectovaginal septum, uterosacral ligaments, and vaginal fornix); and (3) anterior. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 2D and 3D transvaginal US in comparison with MRI were determined. RESULTS: Intestinal deep infiltrating endometriosis was identified by 2DUS in 56 of 66 patients, by 3DUS in 59 of 66, and by MRI in 61 of 66. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed optimal results for 2DUS, 3DUS, and MRI (areas under the curve, 0.86, 0.915, and 0.935, respectively) with a statistically significant difference between 2DUS and MRI (P = .0103), even when the 95% confidence interval showed an overlap. Other posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis was identified by 2DUS in 55 of 75 patients, by 3DUS in 65 of 75, and by MRI in 66 of 75. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed very good results for 2DUS, 3DUS, and MRI (areas under the curve, 0.801, 0.838, and 0.857) with no statistically significant differences. In the 12 women with deep infiltrating endometriosis in the anterior location, the nodules were correctly identified by 2DUS in 3 of 12 patients, by 3DUS in 5 of 12, and by MRI in 6 of 12. CONCLUSIONS: Our results seem to suggest that there is a statistically significant difference between 2DUS and MRI for the intestinal location of deep infiltrating endometriosis, whereas no differences were found among the techniques for the other locations.