Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2020; 38(02/03): 119-128
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719017
Review Article

Imaging Diagnosis of Adenomyosis

Aileen O'Shea 
1   Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Gabrielle Figueiredo
1   Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Susanna I. Lee
1   Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Uterine adenomyosis can be diagnosed on ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a high degree of accuracy. Adenomyosis is a myometrial process that can appear as diffuse or focal on imaging. Diffuse adenomyosis typically causes uterine enlargement, while focal adenomyosis can mimic other myometrial lesions, such as leiomyomas. Imaging features frequently seen on US include a heterogenous thickened myometrium and myometrial cysts. On MRI, widening of the junctional zone, whether focal or diffuse, and the presence of myometrial cysts, either simple or hemorrhagic, support the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Despite these characteristic imaging appearances, there are several gynecologic pathologies which can mimic adenomyosis and it is important to be vigilant of these when interpreting cross-sectional imaging exams. The decision to evaluate patients with US or MRI is contingent on multiple factors, including availability of the necessary technology and expertise for the latter. However, MRI appears to offer greater specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of adenomyosis.

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging - ultrasonography - adenomyosis


Publication History

Article published online:
16 November 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM. et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1996; 199 (01) 151-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tellum T, Nygaard S, Lieng M. Noninvasive diagnosis of adenomyosis: a structured review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020; 27 (02) 408-418.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Taran FA, Stewart EA, Brucker S. Adenomyosis: epidemiology, risk factors, clinical phenotype and surgical and interventional alternatives to hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013; 73 (09) 924-931
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vercellini P, Viganò P, Somigliana E, Daguati R, Abbiati A, Fedele L. Adenomyosis: epidemiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20 (04) 465-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vannuccini S, Petraglia F. Recent advances in understanding and managing adenomyosis. F1000Res 2019; ;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-283. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.17242.1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pinzauti S, Lazzeri L, Tosti C. et al. Transvaginal sonographic features of diffuse adenomyosis in 18-30-year-old nulligravid women without endometriosis: association with symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46 (06) 730-736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, Alves J, Setúbal A, Guerra A. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2017; 8 (06) 549-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moorthy RS. Transvaginal sonography. Med J Armed Forces India 2000; 56 (03) 181-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A. et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics 1999; 19 (Spec No): S147-S160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lyons EA, Gratton D, Harrington C. Transvaginal sonography of normal pelvic anatomy. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30 (04) 663-675
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Li JJ, Chung JPW, Wang S, Li TC, Duan H. The investigation and management of adenomyosis in women who wish to improve or preserve fertility. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 6832685
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rasmussen CK, Hansen ES, Ernst E, Dueholm M. Two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for diagnosis of adenomyosis of the inner myometrium. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38 (05) 750-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rasmussen CK, Hansen ES, Dueholm M. Inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of adenomyosis by 2- and 3-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38 (03) 657-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Byun JY, Kim SE, Choi BG, Ko GY, Jung SE, Choi KH. Diffuse and focal adenomyosis: MR imaging findings. Radiographics 1999; 19 (Spec No): S161-S170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E. et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (11) 2427-2433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio AR, Chapman WB, Bret PM. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in-vitro study. Radiology 2000; 215 (03) 783-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chin LHQ, Li YL, Lee KH. Venetian blind shadowing on ultrasound. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (02) 796-797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cunningham RK, Horrow MM, Smith RJ, Springer J. Adenomyosis: a sonographic diagnosis. Radiographics 2018; 38 (05) 1576-1589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46 (03) 284-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Taran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, Stewart EA. Characteristics indicating adenomyosis coexisting with leiomyomas: a case-control study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (05) 1177-1182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hanafi M. Ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis, leiomyoma, or combined with histopathological correlation. J Hum Reprod Sci 2013; 6 (03) 189-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lee EJ, Joo HJ, Ryu HS. Sonographic findings of uterine polypoid adenomyomas. Ultrasound Q 2004; 20 (01) 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Proscia N, Jaffe TA, Neville AM, Wang CL, Dale BM, Merkle EM. MRI of the pelvis in women: 3D versus 2D T2-weighted technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195 (01) 254-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ. et al. Detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and uterine cancers by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28 (01) 128-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kanasaki Y. et al. Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2008; 18 (01) 18-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Davarpanah AH, Kambadakone A, Holalkere NS, Guimaraes AR, Hahn PF, Lee SI. Diffusion MRI of uterine and ovarian masses: identifying the benign lesions. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41 (12) 2466-2475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McDermott S, Oei TN, Iyer VR, Lee SI. MR imaging of malignancies arising in endometriomas and extraovarian endometriosis. Radiographics 2012; 32 (03) 845-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jha RC, Zanello PA, Ascher SM, Rajan S. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of adenomyosis and fibroids of the uterus. Abdom Imaging 2014; 39 (03) 562-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tian T, Zhang GF, Zhang H, Liu H. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating uterine fibroid from focal adenomyosis: initial results. Springerplus 2016; 5: 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J. et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (05) 1206-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T. MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 2005; 25 (01) 21-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta Radiol 2009; 50 (08) 947-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Simpson Jr WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics 2006; 26 (02) 419-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Liu L, Wong L, Mol B, Condous G, Costa F, Leonardi M. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45: S54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19 (06) 505-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sam M, Raubenheimer M, Manolea F. et al. Accuracy of findings in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis on ultrasound. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45 (03) 842-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar