MRI, US or real-time virtual sonography in the evaluation of adenomyosis?

article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 15 in-corpus citations
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-23

Real-time virtual sonography combining MRI and ultrasound data improved adenomyosis identification compared to ultrasound alone, confirming all MRI-detected cases.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-06 · read from full text

This study evaluated the feasibility and diagnostic performance of real-time virtual sonography (RVS), which fuses real-time transvaginal ultrasound with multiplanar MRI images, for assessing adenomyosis. Fifty-two women with dysmenorrhea, metrorrhagia, and infertility underwent endovaginal ultrasound, 3T MRI, and RVS, with the MRI dataset synchronized and registered to ultrasound, after which radiologists reported each modality separately. Standard endovaginal ultrasound detected adenomyosis in 27 cases (21 diffuse, 6 focal), whereas MRI detected 30 cases (22 diffuse, 8 focal), leading to three missed diagnoses on ultrasound that were all confirmed by RVS, which confirmed all diffuse and all focal adenomyosis cases. The paper’s limitation is that this was a relatively small, short 4-month feasibility study with manual synchronization/registration and no histopathologic reference standard reported. This paper is centrally about endometriosis—specifically adenomyosis evaluation using MRI/US fusion (RVS) to improve ultrasound identification of adenomyosis, a condition closely linked to endometriosis in the corpus.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

PurposeReal-time virtual sonography (RVS) allows displaying and synchronizing real-time US and multiplanar reconstruction of MRI images. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and ability of RVS to assess adenomyosis since literature shows US itself has a reduced diagnostic accuracy compared to MRI.Materials and methodsThis study was conducted over a 4-month period (March-June 2015). We enrolled in the study 52 women with clinical symptoms of dysmenorrhea, methrorragia and infertility. Every patient underwent an endovaginal US examination, followed by a 3T MRI exam and a RVS exam (Hitachi HI Vision Ascendus). The MRI image dataset acquired at the time of the examination was loaded into the fusion system and displayed together with the US images. Both sets of images were then manually synchronized and images were registered using multiple plane MR imaging. Radiologist was asked to report all three examinations separately.ResultsOn a total of 52 patients, on standard endovaginal US, adenomyosis was detected in 27 cases: of these, 21 presented diffuse adenomyosis, and 6 cases focal form of adenomyosis. MRI detected adenomyosis in 30 cases: 22 of these appeared as diffuse form and 8 as focal form, such as adenomyoma and adenomyotic cyst, thus resulting in 3 misdiagnosed cases on US. RVS confirmed all 22 cases of diffuse adenomyosis and all 8 cases of focal adenomyosis.ConclusionsThanks to information from both US and MRI, fusion imaging allows better identification of adenomyosis and could improve the performance of ultrasound operator thus to implement the contribution of TVUS in daily practice.
Full text 7,008 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 6 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Purpose Real-time virtual sonography (RVS) allows displaying and synchronizing real-time US and multiplanar reconstruction of MRI images. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and ability of RVS to assess adenomyosis since literature shows US itself has a reduced diagnostic accuracy compared to MRI.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted over a 4-month period (March–June 2015). We enrolled in the study 52 women with clinical symptoms of dysmenorrhea, methrorragia and infertility. Every patient underwent an endovaginal US examination, followed by a 3T MRI exam and a RVS exam (Hitachi HI Vision Ascendus). The MRI image dataset acquired at the time of the examination was loaded into the fusion system and displayed together with the US images. Both sets of images were then manually synchronized and images were registered using multiple plane MR imaging. Radiologist was asked to report all three examinations separately.

Results

On a total of 52 patients, on standard endovaginal US, adenomyosis was detected in 27 cases: of these, 21 presented diffuse adenomyosis, and 6 cases focal form of adenomyosis. MRI detected adenomyosis in 30 cases: 22 of these appeared as diffuse form and 8 as focal form, such as adenomyoma and adenomyotic cyst, thus resulting in 3 misdiagnosed cases on US. RVS confirmed all 22 cases of diffuse adenomyosis and all 8 cases of focal adenomyosis.

Conclusions

Thanks to information from both US and MRI, fusion imaging allows better identification of adenomyosis and could improve the performance of ultrasound operator thus to implement the contribution of TVUS in daily practice. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Noe M, Kissler S, Leyendecker G (2005) Adenomyosis in endometriosis–prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 20(8):2309–2316 Aziz R (1989) Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 16(1):221–235 Kunz G, Herbertz M, Beil D, Huppert P, Leyendecker G (2007) Adenomyosis as a disorder of the early and late human reproductive period. Reprod Biomed Online 15(6):681–685 Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM et al (2001) Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 16:2427–2433 Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH et al (1994) Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology 190:803–806 Arnold LL, Ascher SM, Schruefer JJ et al (1995) The nonsurgical diagnosis of adenomyosis. Obstet Gynecol 86:461–465 Volkers NA, Hehenkamp WJ, Spijkerboer AM, Moolhuijzen AD, Birnie E, Ankum WM et al (2008) MR reproducibility in the assessment of uterine fibroids for patients scheduled for uterine artery embolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 31:260–268 Fiori O, Darai E (2006) Adenomyosis in endometriosis–prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 21(4):1101–1102 (author reply 1102-3) Dueholm M (2006) Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20:569–582 Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R et al (1996) Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 199:151–158 Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A et al (2011) Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(4):471–479 Jung EM, Friedrich C, Hoffstetter P, Dendl LM, Klebl F, Agha A, Wiggermann P, Stroszcynski C, Schreyer AG (2012) Volume navigation with contrast enhanced ultrasound and image fusion for percutaneous interventions: first results. PLoS One 7(3):e33956 Abi-Jaoudeh N, Kruecker J, Kadoury S, Kobeiter H, Venkatesan AM, Levy E, Wood BJ (2012) Multimodality image fusion-guided procedures: technique, accuracy, and applications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35:986–998 Lee JY, Choi BI, Chung YE, Kim MW, Kim SH (2012) Han JK Clinical value of CT/MR-ultrasound fusion imaging for radiofrequency ablation of hepatic nodules. Eur J Radiol 81:2281–2289 Millischer AE, Salomon LJ, Santulli P, Borghese B, Dousset B, Chapron C (2015) Fusion imaging for evaluation of deep infiltrating endometriosis: feasibility and preliminary results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(1):109–117 Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, Valentin L, Rasmussen CK, Votino A, Van Schoubroeck D, Landolfo C, Installé AJ, Guerriero S, Exacoustos C, Gordts S, Benacerraf B, D’Hooghe T, De Moor B, Brölmann H, Goldstein S, Epstein E, Bourne T, Timmerman D (2015) Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features ofmyometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46(3):284–298 Takeuchi Ml, Matsuzaki K (2011) Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics 31(1):99–115 Maubon A, Faury A, Kapella M, Pouquet M, Piver P (2010) Uterine junctional zone at magnetic resonance imaging: a predictor of in vitro fertilization implantation failure. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 36(3):611–618 Fernando S, Breheny S, Jaques AM, Halliday JL, Baker G, Healy D (2009) Preterm birth, ovarian endometriomata, and assisted reproduction technologies. Fertil Steril 91(2):325–330 Lone FW, Balogun M, Khan KS (2006) Adenomyosis: not such an elusive diagnosis any longer. J Obstet Gynaecol 26(3):225–228 (review) Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS (2010) Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(11):1374–1384

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Luca Mastrogirolamo for his expertise which helped us in the successful comprehension of the RVS and its application. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical standards All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Funding Dr Lucia Manganaro has received a speaker honorarium from Hitachi Medical Systems S.p.A. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Vinci, V., Saldari, M., Sergi, M.E. et al. MRI, US or real-time virtual sonography in the evaluation of adenomyosis?. Radiol med 122, 361–368 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0729-7 Received: Accepted: Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0729-7

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

adenomyosis

MeSH descriptors

Adenomyosis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ultrasonography Ultrasonography Adenomyosis Computer Systems Feasibility Studies Female Humans Prospective Studies User-Computer Interface

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (21)

Cited by (15)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-29T06:27:48.050232+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:20:37.704673+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK