Comparison of 3-Tesla to 1.5-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Enterography to assess multifocal and multicentric bowel endometriosis: Results in routine practice

Allègre L, Lucie Allègre, Aristizabal P, Patrick Aristizabal, Krystel Nyangoh Timoh, Nyangoh Timoh K, Thomassin-Naggara I, Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Isabelle Thomassin‐Naggara, É. Kermarrec, Kermarrec E, Edith Kermarrec, Sofiane Bendifallah, Bendifallah S, Darai E, Émile Daraï, Emile Darai
European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2018 · vol. 230 , pp. 172–177 · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.09.035 · PMID:30292947 · W2893052431
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 7 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study compared 3-Tesla and 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance enterography for assessing multifocal and multicentric bowel endometriosis in routine clinical practice.

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

Abstract

Study objectiveTo compare 1.5-Tesla (1.5 T) to 3-Tesla (3 T) Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) in assessing multifocal (multiple lesions affecting the same segment) and multicentric (multiple lesions affecting several digestive segments) bowel endometriosis in patients with suspected-colorectal endometriosis, in routine practice.Study designWe conducted a retrospective, comparative study in Tenon University Hospital, Paris, France. We included patients scheduled for colorectal resection from April 2014 to February 2018. All patients underwent 1.5 T or 3 T MRE before surgery and endometriosis lesions were confirmed by surgery. The diagnostic performance of 1.5 T and 3 T MRE was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) and area under the curve of receiver operating curves (AUC ROC).ResultsNinety-eight patients were included. Fifty-two (53%) patients presented unifocal lesions, 31 (32%) multifocal lesions, and 23 (24%) multicentric lesions. In assessment of multifocal lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LRs were 0.57 (12/21), 0.89 (23/26), 4.95 and 0.58 for 1.5 T MRE, and 0.10 (1/10), 0.95 (39/41), 2.05 and 0.95 for 3 T MRE. For the diagnosis of multicentric lesions, 1.5 T MRE showed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LRs of 0.46 (5 of 11), 0.92 (33 of 36), 5.45 and 0.60 respectively and 3 T MRE showed sensitivity, specificity, and negative LRs of 0.33 (4/12), 1.00 (39/39), and 0.67, respectively. 1.5 T MRE was more accurate than 3 T MRE for diagnosing multifocal lesions (p = 0.02), but there was no difference for multicentric lesion assessment (p = 0.66).ConclusionIn routine conditions, 3 T MRE and 1.5 T MRE are of similar low performance for diagnosing multifocal and multicentric bowel endometriosis.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisbowel_endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Intestinal Diseases Magnetic Resonance Imaging Adult Area Under Curve Endometriosis Female Humans Intestinal Diseases Intestines Intestines Likelihood Functions Magnetic Resonance Imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Middle Aged Predictive Value of Tests Retrospective Studies ROC Curve Sensitivity and Specificity Young Adult

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 (36)

Cited by (8)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-26T06:08:39.051465+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:19:31.300640+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK