Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Classification of Uterine Adenomyosis: A Pictorial Essay

자궁선근증의 분류 체계: 임상화보

  • Hanna Bae (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Yu Ri Shin (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Sung Eun Rha (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 배한나 (가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 신유리 (가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 나성은 (가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2023.05.30
  • Accepted : 2023.10.05
  • Published : 2024.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

MRI is a crucial tool for diagnosing adenomyosis and identifying its related pathologies. To accurately diagnose adenomyosis, it is necessary to recognize both the typical MRI findings and atypical features of the condition. Recently, a standardized classification system has been developed to facilitate precise presurgical diagnosis of adenomyosis and to determine the appropriate treatment method. Differentiating between various subtypes based on MRI-based classification and identifying different MRI phenotypes can aid in categorizing patients with adenomyosis into specific treatment groups and monitoring their response to therapy.

자기공명영상은 자궁선근증의 진단과 그와 관련된 병리를 발견하는데 중요한 도구이다. 자궁선근증을 정확히 진단하기 위해서는 자궁선근증의 전형적인 자기공명영상 소견과 함께 비전형적인 특징을 인식하는 것이 필요하다. 최근에는 자궁선근증의 수술 전 정확한 진단과 적절한 치료법을 결정하기 위해 표준화된 분류 시스템이 개발되었다. 자기공명영상 기반 분류에 따라 다양한 아형을 구분하여 서로 다른 자기공명영상 표현형을 식별하는 것은 자궁선근증 환자를 특정 치료로 분류하고 치료 반응을 모니터링하는데 도움이 될 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Matalliotakis IM, Kourtis AI, Panidis DK. Adenomyosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2003;30:63-82
  2. Habiba M, Benagiano G. Classifying adenomyosis: progress and challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:12386
  3. 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;25:21-40
  4. Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1996;199:151-158
  5. Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J, Toullalan O, Chevallier A, Bouaziz J, et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:1206-1213
  6. Zhang M, Bazot M, Tsatoumas M, Munro MG, Reinhold C. MRI of adenomyosis: where are we today? Can Assoc Radiol J 2023;74:58-68
  7. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problemsolving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics 2011;31:99-115
  8. Zhai J, Vannuccini S, Petraglia F, Giudice LC. Adenomyosis: mechanisms and pathogenesis. Semin Reprod Med 2020;38:129-143
  9. Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2427-2433
  10. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2001;76:588-594
  11. Gordts S, Brosens JJ, Fusi L, Benagiano G, Brosens I. Uterine adenomyosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:244-248
  12. Valentini AL, Speca S, Gui B, Soglia G, Micco M, Bonomo L. Adenomyosis: from the sign to the diagnosis. Imaging, diagnostic pitfalls and differential diagnosis: a pictorial review. Radiol Med 2011;116:1267-1287
  13. Thoeny HC, Forstner R, De Keyzer F. Genitourinary applications of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the pelvis. Radiology 2012;263:326-342
  14. Rees CO, Nederend J, Mischi M, van Vliet HAAM, Schoot BC. Objective measures of adenomyosis on MRI and their diagnostic accuracy-a systematic review & meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021;100:1377-1391
  15. Kilickesmez O, Bayramoglu S, Inci E, Cimilli T, Kayhan A. Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and diseased uterine zones. Acta Radiol 2009;50:340-347
  16. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. Susceptibility-weighted MRI of extra-ovarian endometriosis: preliminary results. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:2512-2516
  17. Fujiwara T, Togashi K, Yamaoka T, Nakai A, Kido A, Nishio S, et al. Kinematics of the uterus: cine mode MR imaging. Radiographics 2004;24:e19
  18. Okada T, Harada M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H, Aono T. Evaluation of female intrapelvic tumors by clinical proton MR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:912-917
  19. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Uehara H, Shimazu H, Nishitani H. A case of adenomyomatous polyp of the uterus associated with tamoxifen therapy. Radiat Med 2005;23:432-434
  20. Forstner R, Cunha TM, Hamm B. MRI and CT of the female pelvis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer 2018
  21. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. MR manifestations of uterine polypoid adenomyoma. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:480-487
  22. Benagiano G, Brosens I, Habiba M. Adenomyosis: a life-cycle approach. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:220-232
  23. Wolfman DJ, Ascher SM. Magnetic resonance imaging of benign uterine pathology. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2006;17:399-407
  24. Bazot M, Darai E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2018;109:389-397
  25. Kishi Y, Suginami H, Kuramori R, Yabuta M, Suginami R, Taniguchi F. Four subtypes of adenomyosis assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and their specification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:114.e1-114.e7
  26. Kobayashi H, Matsubara S. A classification proposal for adenomyosis based on magnetic resonance imaging. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2020;85:118-126
  27. Gordts S, Grimbizis G, Campo R. Symptoms and classification of uterine adenomyosis, including the place of hysteroscopy in diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2018;109:380-388.e1
  28. Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:312-322
  29. Kobayashi H, Matsubara S, Imanaka S. Relationship between magnetic resonance imaging-based classification of adenomyosis and disease severity. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2021;47:2251-2260
  30. Grimbizis GF, Mikos T, Tarlatzis B. Uterus-sparing operative treatment for adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2014;101:472-487
  31. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Bando Y, Harada M. MR imaging findings of uterine adenomatoid tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci 2024;23:127-135
  32. Kido A, Togashi K, Koyama T, Yamaoka T, Fujiwara T, Fujii S. Diffusely enlarged uterus: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiographics 2003;23:1423-1439
  33. Goto N, Oishi-Tanaka Y, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Minami M. Magnetic resonance findings of primary uterine malignant lymphoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007;6:7-13