{"paper_id":"6c608b1f-f091-4190-97a7-1daea904ae8b","body_text":"Abstract\nUterine leiomyomata, or fibroids, although benign, cause debilitating symptoms in many women. Symptoms are often nonspecific and may be the presenting complaint in a number of other conditions. Furthermore, because the presence of fibroids may be coincident with other symptomatic conditions that result in similar complaints, there may be diagnostic difficulty and consequent difficulty in planning therapeutic strategy. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic fibroids and is increasingly being performed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation before and after treatment is routine practice with the potential to significantly alter management in up to a fifth of patients. It is well recognized that significant incidental findings may be demonstrated during imaging investigations, and in particular that abnormalities that are not directly related to the clinical question may be overlooked. Radiologists evaluating pre-UAE MRI studies must be aware of the MRI appearances of gynecological pathologies that may cause similar symptoms or that may affect the success or complication rates of UAE, and they must also be wary of “satisfaction of search,” reviewing imaging thoroughly so that relevant other pathologies are not missed. We demonstrate the appearances of coincidental pathologies found on pre-UAE MRI, with the potential to change patient management.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nOkolo S (2008) Incidence, aetiology and epidemiology of uterine fibroids. Best Pract Res Obstet Gynaecol 22:288–571\nLevy BS (2008) Modern management of uterine fibroids. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87:812–823\nHirst A, Dutton S, Wu O et al (2008) A multi-centre retrospective cohort study comparing the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy and uterine artery embolisation for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. The HOPEFUL study. Health Technol Assess 12:1–248\nKroncke TJ (2008) Imaging before and after uterine artery embolization. Radiologe 48:639–648\nWatkinson A, Nicholson A (2007) Uterine artery embolisation to treat symptomatic uterine fibroids. BMJ 335:720–722\nGupta S, Jose J, Manyonda I (2008) Clinical presentation of fibroids. Best Pract Res Obstet Gynaecol 22:615–626\nKuligowska E, Deeds L, Lu K (2005) Pelvic pain: overlooked and underdiagnosed gynaecologic conditions. Radiographics 25:3–20\nToor SS, Tan KT, Simons ME et al (2008) Clinical failure after uterine artery embolization: evaluation of patient and MR imaging characteristics. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:662–667\nVerma SK, Bergin D, Gonsalves CF et al (2008) Submucosal fibroids becoming endocavitory following uterine artery embolization: risk assessment by MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1220–1226\nSpielmann A, Keogh C, Forster BB et al (2006) Comparison of MRI and sonography in the preliminary evaluation for fibroid embolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1499–1504\nFirouznia K, Ghanaati H, Sanaati M et al (2008) Uterine artery embolization in 101 cases of uterine fibroids: do size, location and number of fibroids affect therapeutic success and complications? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31:521–526\nParthipun AA, Taylor J, Manyonda I, Belli AM (2010) Does size really matter? analysis of the effect of large fibroids and uterine volumes on complication rates of uterine artery embolisation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:955–959\nOmary RE, Vasireddy S, Chrisman HB et al (2002) The effect of pelvic MR imaging on the diagnosis and treatment of women with presumed symptomatic uterine fibroids. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13:1149–1153\nLee ES, Santilli SM, Olson MM, Kuskowski MA, Lee JT (2000) Wound infection after infrainguinal bypass operations: multivariate analysis of putative risk factors. Surg Infect 1:257–263\nIndes JE, Lipsitz EC, Veith FJ et al (2008) Incidence and significance of nonaneurysmal-related computed tomography scan findings in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 48:286–290\nHerfarth HH, Grunert M, Klebl F et al (2009) Frequency and nature of incidental extra-enteric lesions found on magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. PloS One 4:e4863\nMcCreadie G, Oliver TB (2009) Eight CT lessons that we learned the hard way: an analysis of radiological error and discrepancy with particular emphasis on CT. Clin Radiol 64:491–499\nRazavi MK, Wolanske KA, Hwang GL et al (2002) Angiographic classification of ovarian to uterine artery anastomoses: initial observations in uterine fibroid embolization. Radiology 224:707–712\nKroencke TJ, Sceurig C, Kluner C et al (2006) Uterine fibroids: contrast enhanced MR angiography to predict ovarian artery supply—initial experience. Radiology 241:181–189\nKroencke TJ, Scheurig C, Poellinger A et al (2010) Uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas: percentage of infarction predicts clinical outcome. Radiology 255:834–841\nGlastonbury CM (2002) The shading sign. Radiology 224:199–201\nTogashi K, Nishimura K, Fujisawa I 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\nMark AS, Hricak H, Heinrichs LW et al (1987) Adenomyosis and leiomyomas: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 163:527\nStany P, Maxwell GL, Scott Rose G (2010) Clinical decision making using ovarian cancer risk assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:337–342\nRCOG guideline 34. Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/clinical-guidance/ovarian-cysts-postmenopausal-women-green-top-34. Accessed June 2010\nJeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HK (2000) Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics 20:1445–1470\nJacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J et al (1990) A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97:922–929\nSpencer JA (2005) A multidisciplinary approach to ovarian cancer at diagnosis. Br J Radiol 78(Spec No. 2):S94–S102\nUmeola S, Koyama T, Togashi K et al (2004) Vascular dilation in the pelvis: identification with CT and MR imaging. Radiographics 24:193–208\nBelenky A, Bartal G, Atar E et al (2002) Ovarian varices in healthy female kidney donors: incidence, morbidity and clinical outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:625–627\nCoakley FV, Varghese SL, Hricak H (1999) CT and MRI of pelvic varices in women. JCAT 23:429–434\nDick EA, Burnett C, Anstee A et al (2010) Time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics 3D magnetic resonance venography with pelvic congestion syndrome. Br J Radiol 83:882–887\nMirsadraee S, Tuite D, Nicholson A (2008) Uterine artery embolisation for ureteric obstruction secondary to fibroids. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31:1094–1099\nModic MT, Ross JS (2007) Lumbar degenerative disk disease. Radiology 245:43–61\nJensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N et al (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 331:69–73\nTaylor FGM, Swift RI, Blomqvisy L, Brown G (2008) A systematic approach to the interpretation of preoperative staging MRI for rectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1827–1835\nKirby JM, Burrows D, Haider E et al (2010) Utility of MRI before and after uterine fibroid embolization: why to do it and what to look for. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol [Epub ahead of print]\nConflict of interest\nNo conflict of interest to declare.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nAdditional information\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nWilliams, P.L., Coote, J.M. & Watkinson, A.F. Pre–Uterine Artery Embolization MRI: Beyond Fibroids. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34, 1143–1150 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0124-z\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0124-z","source_license":"public-domain-us","license_restricted":false}