{"paper_id":"5b25164a-6b80-4155-b343-a18f6d0cd65c","body_text":"Abstract\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of a junctional zone (JZ) thickness of ≥ 12 mm and morphological features of the JZ in MRI in diagnosing adenomyosis in a premenopausal study population.\nMethods\nThis single-center, prospective observational study consecutively enrolled 93 premenopausal women suffering from a benign gynecological condition, from September 2014 to August 2016. Institutional review board approval and written consent were obtained. All participants underwent MRI and hysterectomy with a histopathological examination. MR images were evaluated in a blinded fashion by two independent readers. The maximum junctional zone thickness (JZmax), presence of JZmax ≥ 12 mm, and any irregular appearance of the JZ (defined as irregular outer or inner borders, focal thickening, presence of high-intensity signal foci, or fingerlike indentations at the inner border) were documented, and the diagnostic performance was evaluated with the AUC, chi-square test, and multiple regression.\nResults\nAdenomyosis was histopathologically confirmed in 57 (61%) of the women. JZmax was not positively correlated with adenomyosis diagnosis (AUC = 0.57, p = 0.26) and did not differ significantly between those with and without adenomyosis (10.3 vs 10.1 mm, p = 0.88), nor was a cutoff of JZmax ≥ 12 mm (n = 30/57 (53%) vs n = 16/36 (44%), p = 0.29). The presence of an irregular JZ showed the best association with adenomyosis among the evaluated signs (sensitivity 74% (95% CI, 60, 85); specificity 83% (95% CI, 67, 94) (p < 0.001)).\nConclusions\nJZmax was not correlated with adenomyosis in the present premenopausal study population, but direct signs of adenomyosis such as irregularities of the JZ provided a good diagnostic accuracy.\nKey Points\n• Measuring the junctional zone thickness is of limited value for diagnosing adenomyosis with MRI and should not be used for diagnosing adenomyosis in premenopausal women with moderate disease severity.\n• An irregular appearance of the junctional zone, the presence of myometrial cysts, and adenomyoma appear to provide the highest specificity for diagnosing adenomyosis.\n• A consensus for the definition and reading of the junctional zone is needed.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nAbbreviations\n- AUC:\n-\nArea under the receiver operating characteristics curve\n- ICC:\n-\nIntraclass correlation coefficient\n- JZ:\n-\nJunctional zone\n- MRI:\n-\nMagnetic resonance imaging\n- NPV:\n-\nNegative predictive value\n- PPV:\n-\nPositive predictive value\n- R1:\n-\nReader 1\n- R2:\n-\nReader 2\n- ROC:\n-\nReceiver operating characteristics\n- T1W:\n-\nT1-weighted\n- T2W:\n-\nT2-weighted\n- TSE:\n-\nTurbo spin echo\nReferences\nNaftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Holland T, Jurkovic D (2012) How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod 27:3432–3439\nBird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P (1972) The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus--revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol 112:583–593\nChoi EJ, Cho SB, Lee SR et al (2017) Comorbidity of gynecological and non-gynecological diseases with adenomyosis and endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol Sci 60:579–586\nLi X, Liu X, Guo SW (2014) Clinical profiles of 710 premenopausal women with adenomyosis who underwent hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40:485–494\nYounes G, Tulandi T (2017) Effects of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 108:483–490 e483\nBruun MR, Arendt LH, Forman A, Ramlau-Hansen CH (2018) Endometriosis and adenomyosis are associated with increased risk of preterm delivery and a small-for-gestational-age child: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97:1073–1090\nBazot M, Darai E (2018) Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 109:389–397\nAgostinho L, Cruz R, Osorio F, Alves J, Setubal A, Guerra A (2017) MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 8:549–556\nReinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM et al (1996) Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 199:151–158\nDueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 76:588–594\nBazot M, Cortez A, Darai E et al (2001) Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 16:2427–2433\nTellum T, Nygaard S, Skovholt EK, Qvigstad E, Lieng M (2018) Development of a clinical prediction model for diagnosing adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 110:957–964\nByun JY, Kim SE, Choi BG, Ko GY, Jung SE, Choi KH (1999) Diffuse and focal adenomyosis: MR imaging findings. Radiographics 19 Spec No:S161–S170\nTamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T (2005) MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 25:21–40\nTogashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K et al (1988) Adenomyosis: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 166:111–114\nTogashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I et al (1989) Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology 171:531–534\nStamatopoulos CP, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF et al (2012) Value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of adenomyosis and myomas of the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:620–626\nVan den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP 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 46:284–298\nNovellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J et al (2011) MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:1206–1213\nTamai K, Koyama T, Umeoka S, Saga T, Fujii S, Togashi K (2006) Spectrum of MR features in adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20:583–602\nBergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A (2006) Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20:511–521\nMachin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH (2008) Sample size tables for clinical studies, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford\nWatson PF, Petrie A (2010) Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology 73:1167–1179\nMehasseb MK, Bell SC, Brown L, Pringle JH, Habiba M (2011) Phenotypic characterisation of the inner and outer myometrium in normal and adenomyotic uteri. Gynecol Obstet Invest 71:217–224\nHalligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S (2015) Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol 25:932–939\nKang S, Turner DA, Foster GS, Rapoport MI, Spencer SA, Wang JZ (1996) Adenomyosis: specificity of 5 mm as the maximum normal uterine junctional zone thickness in MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1145–1150\nAcknowledgments\nThe authors thank Else Kathrine Skovholt, M.D. for the analysis of the histopathological specimen.\nFunding\nThe first author received a PhD-grant from the Norwegian Women’s Health Association (Norske Kvinners Sanitetsforening) to perform this study (grant number NKS14901), who was involved in neither the design, data analysis, nor publication of this study.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nEthics declarations\nGuarantor\nThe scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Marit Lieng.\nConflict of interest\nThe authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.\nStatistics and biometry\nStaale Nygaard kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Also, several of the authors have significant statistical expertise. However, no complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.\nInformed consent\nWritten informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study.\nEthical approval\nInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained.\nStudy subjects or cohorts overlap\nUltrasound examination was performed on the whole study cohort; the results are reported elsewhere [12]. The data reported in this article have no overlap with previously published work.\nMethodology\n• Prospective\n• Diagnostic or prognostic study\n• Performed at one institution\nAdditional information\nPublisher’s note\nSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\nElectronic supplementary material\nSupplementary Table 1 (download DOCX )\nProtocol for magnetic resonance imaging.aPerpendicular to the long axis of the uterine cavity. bParallel to the long axis of the uterine cavity. T1W, T1-weighted; T2W, T2-weighted; B-TFE, balanced turbo field echo; TSE, turbo spin echo; VISTA, Volumetric Isotropic TSE Acquisition (DOCX 18 kb)\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nTellum, T., Matic, G.V., Dormagen, J.B. et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis with MRI: a prospective study revisiting the junctional zone thickness cutoff of 12 mm as a diagnostic marker. Eur Radiol 29, 6971–6981 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06308-3\nReceived:\nRevised:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nVersion of record:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06308-3","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}