Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science

Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Yeungnam University Institute Medical Science (영남대 의대 학술지 편집위원회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Usefulness of subtraction pelvic magnetic resonance imaging for detection of ovarian endometriosis

  • Lee, Hyun Jung (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2019.08.21
  • Accepted : 2019.09.26
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: To minimize damage to the ovarian reserve, it is necessary to evaluate the follicular density in the ovarian tissue surrounding endometriosis on preoperative imaging. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of subtraction pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect ovarian reserve. Methods: A subtracted T1-weighted image (subT1WI) was obtained by subtracting unenhanced T1WI from contrast-enhanced T1WI (ceT1WI) with similar parameters in 22 patients with ovarian endometriosis. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in ovarian endometriosis, which was classified into the high signal intensity and iso-to-low signal intensity groups on the T2-weighted image, was compared to that in normal ovarian tissue. To evaluate the effect of contrast enhancement, a standardization map was obtained by dividing subT1WI by ceT1WI. Results: On visual assessment of 22 patients with ovarian endometriosis, 16 patients showed a high signal intensity, and 6 patients showed an iso-to-low signal intensity on T1WI. Although SNR in endometriosis with a high signal intensity was higher than that with an iso-to-low signal intensity, there was no difference in SNR after the subtraction (13.72±77.55 vs. 63.03±43.90, p=0.126). The area of the affected ovary was smaller than that of the normal ovary (121.10±22.48 vs. 380.51±75.87 ㎟, p=0.002), but the mean number of pixels in the viable remaining tissue of the affected ovary was similar to that of the normal ovary (0.53±0.09 vs. 0.47±0.09, p=0.682). Conclusion: The subtraction technique used with pelvic MRI could reveal the extent of endometrial invasion of the normal ovarian tissue and viable remnant ovarian tissue.

Keywords

References

  1. Hauth EA, Stattaus J, Kimmig R, Schmidt M, Forsting M. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis in diagnosing endometriosis. Zentralbl Gynakol 2005;127:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-836326
  2. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, Chapron C. Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol 2006;16:285-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2882-y
  3. Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Mezzetti TP Jr. Endometriosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2001;21:193-216. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.1.g01ja14193
  4. Nishio N, Kido A, Kataoka M, Kuwahara R, Nakao K, Kurata Y, et al. Longitudinal changes in magnetic resonance imaging of malignant and borderline tumors associated with ovarian endometriotic cyst comparing with endometriotic cysts without arising malignancy. Eur J Radiol 2018;105:175-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.06.007
  5. Tanaka YO, Okada S, Yagi T, Satoh T, Oki A, Tsunoda H, et al. MRI of endometriotic cysts in association with ovarian carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:355-61. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2985
  6. Sugimura K, Okizuka H, Imaoka I, Kaji Y, Takahashi K, Kitao M, et al. Pelvic endometriosis: detection and diagnosis with chemical shift MR imaging. Radiology 1993;188:435-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.188.2.8327693
  7. Sanchez AM, Vigano P, Somigliana E, Panina-Bordignon P, Vercellini P, Candiani M. The distinguishing cellular and molecular features of the endometriotic ovarian cyst: from pathophysiology to the potential endometriosis-mediated damage to the ovary. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:217-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt053
  8. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Kimura I, Tsuda Y, Yamashita K, Shibata T, et al. Endometrial cysts: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1991;180:73-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.180.1.2052726
  9. Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, Kinkel K, Cunha TM, Guerra A, et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2765-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4673-z
  10. Forstner R, Meissnitzer M, Schlattau A, Spencer JA. MRI in ovarian cancer. Imaging Med 2012;4:59-75. https://doi.org/10.2217/iim.11.69
  11. Working group of ESGE, ESHRE, and WES; Saridogan E, Becker CM, Feki A, Grimbizis GF, Hummelshoj L, et al. Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis-part 1: ovarian endometriosis. Gynecol Surg 2017;14:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1029-x
  12. Grammatikakis I, Evangelinakis N, Salamalekis G, Tziortzioti V, Samaras C, Chrelias C, et al. Prevalence of severe pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriotic ovarian cysts: a 7-year retrospective study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2009;36:235-6.
  13. Guan X, Yu X, Liu X, Long J, Dai J. CT perfusion imaging and CT subtraction angiography in the diagnosis of ischemic cerebrovascular disease within 24 hours. Chin Med J (Engl) 2003;116:368-72.
  14. Lee VS, Flyer MA, Weinreb JC, Krinsky GA, Rofsky NM. Image subtraction in gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1427-32. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.6.8956572
  15. Eid M, Abougabal A. Subtraction images: a really helpful tool in non-vascular MRI. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2014;45:909-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrnm.2014.04.013
  16. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification of endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril 1997;67:817-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81391-X
  17. Newatia A, Khatri G, Friedman B, Hines J. Subtraction imaging: applications for nonvascular abdominal MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1018-25. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.2182
  18. Hecht EM, Israel GM, Krinsky GA, Hahn WY, Kim DC, Belitskaya-Levy I, et al. Renal masses: quantitative analysis of enhancement with signal intensity measurements versus qualitative analysis of enhancement with image subtraction for diagnosing malignancy at MR imaging. Radiology 2004;232:373-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2322031209
  19. Yu JS, Rofsky NM. Dynamic subtraction MR imaging of the liver: advantages and pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1351-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801351
  20. Chanana C, Gupta N, Bansal I, Hooda K, Sharma P, Gupta M, et al. Different sonographic faces of ectopic pregnancy. J Clin Imaging Sci 2017;7:6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_105_16
  21. Bennett GL, Slywotzky CM, Cantera M, Hecht EM. Unusual manifestations and complications of endometriosis--spectrum of imaging findings: self-assessment module. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(6 Suppl):S84-8. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.7244
  22. Gandhi D, Garg G, Solanki S, Nepal P. Deep infiltrating endometriosis: role of magnetic resonance subtraction imaging. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2018;8:722-3. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2018.08.06
  23. Sun X, Shi L, Luo Y, Yang W, Li H, Liang P, et al. Histogram-based normalization technique on human brain magnetic resonance images from different acquisitions. Biomed Eng Online 2015;14:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-015-0064-y
  24. Hornstein MD, Gleason RE, Orav J, Haas ST, Friedman AJ, Rein MS, et al. The reproducibility of the revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1993;59:1015-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55921-4
  25. Schultes G. Classification of endometriosis. Wien Med Wochenschr 1999;149:361-5.
  26. Chan JH, Peh WC, Tsui EY, Wong KP, Yuen MK. Three-dimensional time-of-flight subtraction angiography of subacute cerebral hemorrhage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:242-4. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.1.1810242
  27. Cheng B, Cai W, Sun C, Kang Y, Gong J. 3D bone subtraction CT angiography for the evaluation of intracranial aneurysms: a comparison study with 2D bone subtraction CT angiography and conventional non-subtracted CT angiography. Acta Radiol 2015;56:1127-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114549495
  28. Jamil K, Walker T, Onikul E, Munns CF, Little DG. A comparison of subtraction MRI with the standard contrast-enhanced imaging in Perthes' disease. J Child Orthop 2019;13:82-8. https://doi.org/10.1302/1863-2548.13.180136