Head-to-head prospective comparison of diagnostic accuracy of preoperative ultrasonography and MRI in patients undergoing surgery for deep endometriosis using #Enzian classification.

IF 6.3
B Pete, K Turtóczki, A Bokor, I Kalina, I Madár, L Lipták, J Rigó, N Ács, G Szabó
{"title":"Head-to-head prospective comparison of diagnostic accuracy of preoperative ultrasonography and MRI in patients undergoing surgery for deep endometriosis using #Enzian classification.","authors":"B Pete, K Turtóczki, A Bokor, I Kalina, I Madár, L Lipták, J Rigó, N Ács, G Szabó","doi":"10.1002/uog.70298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To perform a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative detection of endometriosis using the #Enzian classification system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational study of postmenarchal premenopausal women who underwent laparoscopy between 1 April 2021 and 31 May 2024 in a tertiary referral center for clinical suspicion of endometriosis. All women underwent both transvaginal and transabdominal US imaging, according to the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) protocol, as well as MRI evaluation. The sonologist and the radiologist were blinded to each other's results. The diagnostic performance of US and MRI were determined for the following #Enzian compartments: O (ovarian endometriosis), T (adhesions at the level of the tubo-ovarian unit), A (deep endometriosis (DE) in the vagina, rectovaginal septum and torus uterinus), B (DE in the uterosacral ligament, cardinal ligament, parametrium and pelvic sidewall), C (DE in the rectosigmoid bowel), FI (lesions in other intestinal locations), FB (urinary bladder involvement), FU (ureteric involvement) and FO (lesions in other extragenital locations). The sensitivity and specificity were compared between imaging modalities using McNemar's test. Concordance between preoperative imaging and surgical assessment of #Enzian severity grade for endometriotic lesions/adhesions in #Enzian compartments O, T, A, B and C was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 463 women who underwent laposcopy for diagnosis and excisional treatment of endometriosis were enrolled in the study. For the detection of endometriotic lesions/adhesions in #Enzian compartments O<sub>left</sub>, O<sub>right</sub>, T<sub>left</sub>, T<sub>right</sub>, A, B<sub>left</sub>, B<sub>right</sub>, C, FI, FU, FB and FO, US had a sensitivity of 97.52%, 97.22%, 85.15%, 85.26%, 92.66%, 88.81%, 86.79%, 95.79%, 75.00%, 76.19%, 83.72% and 60.00%, respectively, and a specificity of 96.77%, 97.73%, 96.63%, 94.79%, 91.02%, 96.66%, 96.92%, 95.60%, 98.77%, 97.96%, 99.05% and 99.56%, respectively. For MRI, the corresponding values for sensitivity were 95.04%, 94.44%, 77.23%, 74.74%, 90.37%, 88.06%, 90.57%, 94.21%, 83.93%, 71.43%, 74.42% and 90.00%, and those for specificity were 95.89%, 95.75%, 92.70%, 89.86%, 93.47%, 96.05%, 94.96%, 94.14%, 97.05%, 99.10%, 98.57% and 98.90%. US had significantly higher specificity in #Enzian compartment T on both the left (P = 0.0336) and right (P = 0.0153) sides compared with MRI, but no other comparisons of sensitivity or specificity between US and MRI showed statistically significant differences. US showed higher exact concordance with surgical assessment in severity grading for lesions/adhesions in the adnexa than did MRI (O<sub>left</sub>, 96.3% vs 94.8%; O<sub>right</sub>, 97.2% vs 94.6%; T<sub>left</sub>, 93.9% vs 89.0%; T<sub>right</sub>, 92.6% vs 86.7%). For DE nodules, US showed a 3.1 percentage point higher exact concordance with laparoscopy compared with MRI in #Enzian compartment C (94.0% vs 90.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>US evaluation following the IDEA protocol has significantly higher specificity compared with that of MRI for pelvic adhesions in #Enzian compartment T. However, US and MRI have similarly high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing DE in all relevant #Enzian compartments. © 2026 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.</p>","PeriodicalId":520822,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"413-425"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13532160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.70298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To perform a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative detection of endometriosis using the #Enzian classification system.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study of postmenarchal premenopausal women who underwent laparoscopy between 1 April 2021 and 31 May 2024 in a tertiary referral center for clinical suspicion of endometriosis. All women underwent both transvaginal and transabdominal US imaging, according to the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) protocol, as well as MRI evaluation. The sonologist and the radiologist were blinded to each other's results. The diagnostic performance of US and MRI were determined for the following #Enzian compartments: O (ovarian endometriosis), T (adhesions at the level of the tubo-ovarian unit), A (deep endometriosis (DE) in the vagina, rectovaginal septum and torus uterinus), B (DE in the uterosacral ligament, cardinal ligament, parametrium and pelvic sidewall), C (DE in the rectosigmoid bowel), FI (lesions in other intestinal locations), FB (urinary bladder involvement), FU (ureteric involvement) and FO (lesions in other extragenital locations). The sensitivity and specificity were compared between imaging modalities using McNemar's test. Concordance between preoperative imaging and surgical assessment of #Enzian severity grade for endometriotic lesions/adhesions in #Enzian compartments O, T, A, B and C was assessed.

Results: In total, 463 women who underwent laposcopy for diagnosis and excisional treatment of endometriosis were enrolled in the study. For the detection of endometriotic lesions/adhesions in #Enzian compartments Oleft, Oright, Tleft, Tright, A, Bleft, Bright, C, FI, FU, FB and FO, US had a sensitivity of 97.52%, 97.22%, 85.15%, 85.26%, 92.66%, 88.81%, 86.79%, 95.79%, 75.00%, 76.19%, 83.72% and 60.00%, respectively, and a specificity of 96.77%, 97.73%, 96.63%, 94.79%, 91.02%, 96.66%, 96.92%, 95.60%, 98.77%, 97.96%, 99.05% and 99.56%, respectively. For MRI, the corresponding values for sensitivity were 95.04%, 94.44%, 77.23%, 74.74%, 90.37%, 88.06%, 90.57%, 94.21%, 83.93%, 71.43%, 74.42% and 90.00%, and those for specificity were 95.89%, 95.75%, 92.70%, 89.86%, 93.47%, 96.05%, 94.96%, 94.14%, 97.05%, 99.10%, 98.57% and 98.90%. US had significantly higher specificity in #Enzian compartment T on both the left (P = 0.0336) and right (P = 0.0153) sides compared with MRI, but no other comparisons of sensitivity or specificity between US and MRI showed statistically significant differences. US showed higher exact concordance with surgical assessment in severity grading for lesions/adhesions in the adnexa than did MRI (Oleft, 96.3% vs 94.8%; Oright, 97.2% vs 94.6%; Tleft, 93.9% vs 89.0%; Tright, 92.6% vs 86.7%). For DE nodules, US showed a 3.1 percentage point higher exact concordance with laparoscopy compared with MRI in #Enzian compartment C (94.0% vs 90.9%).

Conclusions: US evaluation following the IDEA protocol has significantly higher specificity compared with that of MRI for pelvic adhesions in #Enzian compartment T. However, US and MRI have similarly high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing DE in all relevant #Enzian compartments. © 2026 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

应用#Enzian分类对深部子宫内膜异位症患者术前超声与MRI诊断准确性的正面前瞻性比较
目的:采用#Enzian分类系统对超声(US)和磁共振成像(MRI)在子宫内膜异位症术前检测中的诊断性能进行对比。方法:这是一项前瞻性观察研究,研究对象是2021年4月1日至2024年5月31日期间在三级转诊中心因临床怀疑子宫内膜异位症而接受腹腔镜检查的绝经后绝经前妇女。根据国际深部子宫内膜异位症分析(IDEA)协议以及MRI评估,所有女性都接受了经阴道和经腹部的超声成像。超声医生和放射科医生对彼此的结果一无所知。确定US和MRI对以下#Enzian隔室的诊断性能:O(卵巢子宫内膜异位症)、T(输卵管-卵巢单元水平粘连)、A(阴道、直肠阴道隔和子宫环深度子宫内膜异位症(DE)、B(子宫骶韧带、枢机韧带、参数层和盆腔侧壁DE)、C(直肠乙状结肠DE)、FI(其他肠道部位病变)、FB(膀胱受累)、FU(输尿管受累)和FO(其他生殖器外部位病变)。采用McNemar试验比较不同成像方式的敏感性和特异性。评估O、T、A、B和C间室子宫内膜异位症病变/粘连的术前影像学与手术评估#Enzian严重程度分级的一致性。结果:总共有463名接受腹腔镜诊断和子宫内膜异位症切除治疗的妇女被纳入研究。对于#Enzian腔室olleft、right、Tleft、Tright、A、blleft、Bright、C、FI、FU、FB、FO的子宫内膜异位症病变/粘连,US的敏感性分别为97.52%、97.22%、85.15%、85.26%、92.66%、88.81%、86.79%、95.79%、75.00%、76.72%、83.72%、60.00%,特异性分别为96.77%、97.73%、96.63%、94.79%、91.02%、96.66%、96.92%、95.60%、98.77%、97.96%、99.05%、99.56%。MRI敏感性分别为95.04%、94.44%、77.23%、74.74%、90.37%、88.06%、90.57%、94.21%、83.93%、71.43%、74.42%、90.00%,特异性分别为95.89%、95.75%、92.70%、89.86%、93.47%、96.05%、94.96%、94.14%、97.05%、99.10%、98.57%、98.90%。与MRI相比,US在左(P = 0.0336)和右(P = 0.0153)侧的#Enzian T室的特异性均显著高于MRI,但其他敏感性和特异性比较,US与MRI无统计学差异。与MRI相比,US在附件病变/粘连严重程度分级方面与手术评估的准确性更高(olleft, 96.3% vs 94.8%; right, 97.2% vs 94.6%; Tleft, 93.9% vs 89.0%; Tright, 92.6% vs 86.7%)。对于DE结节,在#Enzian室C中,超声与腹腔镜的精确一致性比MRI高3.1个百分点(94.0% vs 90.9%)。结论:与MRI相比,采用IDEA方案的US评估对#Enzian t室盆腔粘连的特异性明显更高。然而,US和MRI在诊断所有相关#Enzian室DE方面具有相似的高敏感性和特异性。©2026作者。妇产科学超声由John Wiley & Sons Ltd代表国际妇产科学超声学会出版。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书