{"paper_id":"029f2fde-d4e7-4f96-8a86-8d74138fbbfe","body_text":"Abstract\nBackground\nAdenomyosis is a benign disorder characterized by the presence of ectopic endometrial glands and stroma within the myometrium. The main clinical manifestations of adenomyosis are dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and infertility, which affect patients’ quality of life. Recently, with advancements in imaging techniques, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography have become the main diagnostic tools for adenomyosis. In addition to the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of adenomyosis, ultrasonography can also be used to evaluate the severity of adenomyosis. The emergence of new techniques, such as elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), has significantly improved the accuracy of ultrasound-based diagnosis of adenomyosis. These two imaging tools can also be used for the differential diagnosis of adenomyosis and the evaluation of treatment efficacy after medication or ablation procedure.\nObjective\nwe review the efficacy of ultrasonography as a diagnostic tool for adenomyosis. We also aim to introduce the potential of ultrasound imaging in the evaluation of the severity of this disease, as well as the application of elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in its diagnosis.\nResults and Conclusion\nOur findings reveal the potential value of ultrasonography combined with elastography and/or CEUS as medication guidance and efficacy evaluation tools in the long-term management of adenomyosis.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nData Availability\nData availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study\nReferences\nVan den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D (2018) Ultrasound diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: State of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 51:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.013\nCunningham RK, Horrow MM, Smith RJ, Springer J (2018) Adenomyosis: a sonographic diagnosis. Radiographics 38(5):1576–1589. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180080\nHarada T, Khine YM, Kaponis A, Nikellis T, Decavalas G, Taniguchi F (2016) The impact of adenomyosis on women’s fertility. Obstet Gynecol Surv 71(9):557–568. https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000000346\nVercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E (2014) Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 29(5):964–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu041\nYounes G, Tulandi T (2017) Effects of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 108(3):483-490.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.025\nLiu X, Ding D, Ren Y, Guo SW (2018) Transvaginal elastosonography as an imaging technique for diagnosing adenomyosis. Reprod Sci 25(4):498–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719117750752\nGuo SW (2022) Cracking the enigma of adenomyosis: an update on its pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Reproduction 164(5):R101–R121. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep-22-0224\nChapron C, Vannuccini S, Santulli P, Abrão MS, Carmona F, Fraser IS et al (2020) Diagnosing adenomyosis: an integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum Reprod Update 26(3):392–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz049\nGrab D, Merz E, Eichhorn KH, Tutschek B, Kagan KO, Heling KS et al (2022) Basic gynecologic ultrasound examination (Level I): DEGUM, ÖGUM, and SGUM recommendations. Ultraschall Med. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1851-5157.10.1055/a-1851-515\nVan den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, Valentin L, Rasmussen CK, Votino A et al (2015) 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 46(3):284–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14806\nVan den Bosch T, de Bruijn AM, de Leeuw RA, Dueholm M, Exacoustos C, Valentin L et al (2019) Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53(5):576–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19096\nBazot M, Daraï E, Rouger J, Detchev R, Cortez A, Uzan S (2002) Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20(6):605–611. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00852.x\nLevy G, Dehaene A, Laurent N, Lernout M, Collinet P, Lucot JP et al (2013) An update on adenomyosis. Diagn Interv Imaging 94(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2012.10.012\nDueholm M (2006) Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best practice and research. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20(4):569–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.005\nLiu L, Li W, Leonardi M, Condous G, Da Silva CF, Mol BW et al (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis and review of sonographic diagnostic criteria. J Ultrasound Med 40(11):2289–2306. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15635\nRasmussen CK, Hansen ES, Dueholm M (2019) Inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of adenomyosis by 2- and 3-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 38(3):657–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14735\nExacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B, Romanini ME, Zupi E et al (2011) Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(4):471–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8900\nAndres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrão MS, Kho RM (2018) Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(2):257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.653\nKepkep K, Tuncay YA, Göynümer G, Tutal E (2007) Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30(3):341–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3985\nRasmussen CK, Van den Bosch T, Exacoustos C, Manegold-Brauer G, Benacerraf BR, Froyman W et al (2019) Intra- and inter-rater agreement describing myometrial lesions using morphologic uterus sonographic assessment: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 38(10):2673–2683. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14971\nHarmsen MJ, Van den Bosch T, de Leeuw RA, Dueholm M, Exacoustos C, Valentin L et al (2022) Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 60(1):118–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24786\nKeckstein J, Hoopmann M, Merz E, Grab D, Weichert J, Helmy-Bader S et al (2023) Expert opinion on the use of transvaginal sonography for presurgical staging and classification of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307(1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06766-z\nCohen Ben-Meir L, Soriano D, Zajicek M, Yulzari V, Bouaziz J, Beer-Gabel M et al (2022) The association between gastrointestinal Symptoms and Transvaginal Ultrasound Findings in women referred for endometriosis evaluation: a prospective pilot study. Ultraschall Med 43(5):e81–e89. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1300-188725\nBourdon M, Oliveira J, Marcellin L, Santulli P, Bordonne C, Maitrot Mantelet L et al (2021) Adenomyosis of the inner and outer myometrium are associated with different clinical profiles. Hum Reprod 36(2):349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa307\nMarques ALS, Andres MP, Mattos LA, Gonçalves MO, Baracat EC, Abrão MS (2021) Association of 2D and 3D transvaginal ultrasound findings with adenomyosis in symptomatic women of reproductive age: a prospective study. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 76:e2981. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2021/e2981\nExacoustos C, Lazzeri L, Martire FG, Russo C, Martone S, Centini G et al (2022) Ultrasound findings of Adenomyosis in Adolescents: type and grade of the disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(2):291-299.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.023\nNaftalin J, Hoo W, Nunes N, Holland T, Mavrelos D, Jurkovic D (2016) Association between ultrasound features of adenomyosis and severity of menstrual pain. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47(6):779–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15798\nNaftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Foo X, Jurkovic D (2014) Is adenomyosis associated with menorrhagia? Hum Reprod 29(3):473–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det451\nPinzauti S, Lazzeri L, Tosti C, Centini G, Orlandini C, Luisi S et al (2015) Transvaginal sonographic features of diffuse adenomyosis in 18–30-year-old nulligravid women without endometriosis: association with symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(6):730–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14834\nLazzeri L, Morosetti G, Centini G, Monti G, Zupi E, Piccione E et al (2018) A sonographic classification of adenomyosis: interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of type and degree of the myometrial involvement. Fertil Steril 110(6):1154-1161.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.031\nExacoustos C, Morosetti G, Conway F, Camilli S, Martire FG, Lazzeri L et al (2020) New sonographic classification of Adenomyosis: do type and degree of Adenomyosis correlate to severity of symptoms? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(6):1308–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.788\nTamura H, Kishi H, Kitade M, Asai-Sato M, Tanaka A, Murakami T et al (2017) Complications and outcomes of pregnant women with adenomyosis in Japan. Reprod Med Biol 16(4):330–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.1205034\nShiina T, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML, Hall TJ, Bamber JC, Barr RG et al (2015) WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 1: basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med Biol 41(5):1126–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.009\nCosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, Bojunga J, Correas JM, Gilja OH et al (2013) EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography Part 2: clinical applications. Ultraschall Med 34(3):238–253. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1335375\nXholli A, Londero APP, Cavalli E, Scovazzi U, Ferraro MF, Vacca I et al (2023) The benefit of transvaginal elastography in detecting deep endometriosis: a feasibility study. Ultraschall Med. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2028-8214.10.1055/a-2028-821437\nSăsăran V, Turdean S, Gliga M, Ilyes L, Grama O, Muntean M et al (2021) Value of Strain-ratio elastography in the diagnosis and differentiation of uterine fibroids and adenomyosis. J Pers Med 11(8):824. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080824\nGörgülü FF, Okçu NT (2021) Which imaging method is better for the differentiation of adenomyosis and uterine fibroids? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 50(5):102002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102002\nWei Q, Yan YJ, Wu GG, Ye XR, Jiang F, Liu J et al (2021) Added value of a new strain elastography technique in conventional ultrasound for the diagnosis of breast masses: a prospective multicenter study. Front Oncol 11:779612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.779612\nSăsăran V, Turdean S, Mărginean C, Gliga M, Ilyes L, Grama O et al (2022) Transvaginal ultrasound combined with strain-ratio elastography for the concomitant diagnosis of uterine fibroids and adenomyosis: a pilot study. J Clin Med 11(13):3757. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133757\nAcar S, Millar E, Mitkova M, Mitkov V (2016) Value of ultrasound shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Ultrasound 24(4):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X16673677\nFrank ML, Schäfer SD, Möllers M, Falkenberg MK, Braun J, Möllmann U et al (2016) Importance of transvaginal elastography in the diagnosis of uterine fibroids and adenomyosis. Ultraschall Med 37(4):373–378. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1553266\nTessarolo M, Bonino L, Camanni M, Deltetto F (2011) Elastosonography: a possible new tool for diagnosis of adenomyosis? Eur Radiol 21(7):1546–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2064-z\nWang XL, Lin S, Lyu GR (2012) Advances in the clinical application of ultrasound elastography in uterine imaging. Insights Imag 13(1):141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01274-9\nWang S, Li B, Duan H, Wang Y, Shen X, Dong Q (2021) Abnormal expression of connective tissue growth factor and its correlation with fibrogenesis in adenomyosis. Reprod Biomed Online 42(3):651–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.11.002\nYang B, Gu N, Shi S, Zhang C, Chen L, Ouyang J et al (2021) Immunoreactivity of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 and Its correlation with dysmenorrhea and lesional fibrosis in adenomyosis. Reprod Sci 28(8):2378–2386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00513-6\nHuang Q, Liu X, Critchley H, Fu Z, Guo SW (2022) How does the extent of fibrosis in adenomyosis lesions contribute to heavy menstrual bleeding? Reprod Med Biol 21(1):e12442. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12442\nXie M, Yu H, Zhang X, Wang W, Ren Y (2019) Elasticity of adenomyosis is increased after GnRHa therapy and is associated with spontaneous pregnancy in infertile patents. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 48(10):849–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.05.003\nMarigliano C, Panzironi G, Molisso L, Pizzuto A, Ciolina F, Napoli A et al (2016) First experience of real-time elastography with transvaginal approach in assessing response to MRgFUS treatment of uterine fibroids. Radiol Med 121(12):926–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0679-5\nChhabra P, Daugherty R, LeNoir AM, Grilli C, Makai G, Patel N et al (2021) Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the detection and characterization of Uterine Leiomyomas. J Ultrasound Med 40(6):1147–1153. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15495\nZhang YQ, Chen JH, Zhu TT, Zhao AX, Zhuang LT, Lu CY et al (2022) Applying contrast-enhanced ultrasound model to distinguish atypical focal adenomyosis from uterine leiomyomas. Ann Transl Med 10(20):1108\nDurot I, Wilson SR, Willmann JK (2018) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of malignant liver lesions. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43(4):819–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1360-8\nLiu X, Jang HJ, Khalili K, Kim TK, Atri M (2018) Successful Integration of contrast-enhanced US into routine abdominal imaging. Radiographics 38(5):1454–1477. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170152\nPang T, Huang L, Deng Y, Wang T, Chen S, Gong X et al (2017) Logistic regression analysis of conventional ultrasonography, strain elastosonography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound characteristics for the differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0188987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188987\nGreen RW, Epstein E (2020) Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound improves diagnostic performance in endometrial cancer staging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 56(1):96–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.21885\nDietrich CF (2019) Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound of Benign Focal Liver Lesions. Ultraschall Med 40(1):12–29. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0668-5746\nMa X, Zhao Y, Zhang B, Ling W, Zhuo H, Jia H et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(3):277–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14800\nPeng S, Xiong Y, Li K, He M, Deng Y, Chen L et al (2012) Clinical utility of a microbubble-enhancing contrast (“SonoVue”) in treatment of uterine fibroids with high intensity focused ultrasound: a retrospective study. Eur J Radiol 81(12):3832–3838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.04.030\nJiang N, Xie B, Zhang X, He M, Li K, Bai J et al (2014) Enhancing ablation effects of a microbubble-enhancing contrast agent (“SonoVue”) in the treatment of uterine fibroids with high-intensity focused ultrasound: a randomized controlled trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37(5):1321–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0803-z\nWang W, Wang Y, Tang J (2009) Safety and efficacy of high intensity focused ultrasound ablation therapy for adenomyosis. Acad Radiol 16(11):1416–1423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.005\nXu C, Tang Y, Zhao Y, Li Y, Feng Q (2020) Use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluating the efficacy and application value of microwave ablation for adenomyosis. J Cancer Res Ther 16(2):365–371. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_769_18\nCheng CQ, Zhang RT, Xiong Y, Chen L, Wang J, Huang GH et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for evaluation of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of benign uterine diseases: retrospective analysis of contrast safety. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(16):e729. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000729\nFunding\nThis work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2022YFC2704002), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82071621), and Major Basic Research of Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (Grant No. ZR2021ZD34).\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nContributions\nRQ: manuscript writing and literature review; YM: manuscript writing and editing; GW: manuscript writing and editing, and project development.\nCorresponding author\nEthics declarations\nConflicts of interest\nThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\nAdditional information\nPublisher's Note\nSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\nRights and permissions\nSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nRen, Q., Yuan, M. & Wang, G. Role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of disease severity and treatment efficacy in adenomyosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309, 363–371 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07034-4\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nVersion of record:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07034-4","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}