Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on July 29, 2008
Human Reproduction 2008 23(11):2452-2457; doi:10.1093/humrep/den293
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diagnostic value of transvaginal ‘tenderness-guided’ ultrasonography for the prediction of location of deep endometriosis
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cagliari, Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio, Via Ospedale 46, 09124 Cagliari, Italy
1 Correspondence address. Tel: +39-070-6092467; Fax: +39-070-668575; E-mail: gineca.sguerriero{at}tiscali.it
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal tenderness-guided ultrasonography in the identification of location of deep endometriosis.
METHODS: Consecutive women scheduled for surgery in our Department for clinically suspected endometriosis were included in this prospective study. All women underwent modified transvaginal ultrasonography using a stand-off in the week before surgery, which also evaluated the painful sites evocated by a gentle pressure of the probe. Five locations of deep endometriosis were considered: vaginal walls, rectovaginal septum, rectosigmoid involvement, uterosacral ligaments and anterior compartment (anterior pouch and/or bladder). Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR+/–) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: We included 88 women; surgery associated with histopathological evaluation revealed deep endometriosis in different pelvic locations in 72 patients. With respect to the vaginal walls, transvaginal ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 79–97%), specificity of 89% (95% CI, 81–93%), an LR+ of 8.2 and an LR– of 0.09. For endometriosis of rectovaginal septum, transvaginal ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 74% (95% CI, 64–80%), specificity of 88% (95% CI, 4–8%), an LR+ of 6.2 and an LR– of 0.3. For other locations, the sensitivity was lower (ranging from 67% to 33%) with a comparable specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: This technique shows a high specificity and sensitivity in the detection of vaginal and rectovaginal endometriosis. Good specificity associated with a lower sensitivity was obtained in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis of uterosacral ligaments, rectosigmoid involvement or anterior deep endometriosis.
Key words: transvaginal ultrasonography/deep endometriosis/sensitivity/specificity
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
Deep invasive endometriosis is defined by the presence of endometriotic implants that penetrate the retroperitoneal space for a distance of 5 mm or more. This disease involves the Douglas pouch, the rectovaginal septum, intestine, anterior pouch and the uterosacral ligaments (Koninckx et al., 1991
) but seems difficult to assess by physical examination only (Chapron et al., 2002; Abrao et al., 2007). Preoperative evaluation is mandatory for the selection of different medical or surgical options and the selection of an appropriate surgeon with sufficient experience in this kind of surgery (Angioni et al., 2006). In addition, the identification of different locations of deep endometriosis has a crucial role because in certain sites as, e.g. intestine or bladder, the surgery is particularly difficult and risky. Transvaginal ultrasonography should be considered the first-line procedure, but in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis this technique seems to have controversial results. Sensitivities of plain transvaginal ultrasonography have been reported to range from 44% to 89% and specificity from 50% to 85% (Bazot et al., 2003, 2004a,2007a; Dessole et al., 2003). Recently, more encouraging results have been obtained by Abrao et al. (2007) that have evaluated the capacity of transvaginal ultrasonography to diagnose only rectosigmoid and retrocervical involvement in patients with clinically suspected endometriosis. On the contrary, other authors have reported the sensitivity to be <30% in the rectovaginal septum location (Bazot et al., 2004a). Dessole et al. (2003) have proposed a new technique called sonovaginography for the assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis, based on transvaginal ultrasonography combined with the introduction of saline solution to the vagina that creates an acoustic window between the transvaginal probe and the surrounding structures of the vagina. As an alternative, Guerriero et al. (2007) created a new modality of ultrasonographic evaluation called ‘tenderness-guided’ ultrasonography, using an acoustic window between the transvaginal probe and the surrounding vaginal structures by increasing the amount of ultrasound gel inside the probe cover. In addition, because the endometriotic nodule itself can induce pain, they asked patients to indicate during the ultrasonographic examination which points felt tender under gentle pressure of the probe, and they paid particular attention to evaluate those sites. Using this approach, they obtained a specificity of 95% with a sensitivity of 90% (Guerriero et al., 2007). No studies have been reported illustrating the role of this new technique in the identification of different locations of deep endometriosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal tenderness-guided ultrasonography in the identification of location of deep endometriotic implants.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
Consecutive women scheduled for laparoscopic surgery in our Department between December 2005 and December 2007 for clinically suspected endometriosis, on the basis of patient history of pelvic pain and/or clinical examination, were included in this prospective study. This observational study protocol was approved by our Institutional Review Board. All women underwent modified transvaginal ultrasonography using a stand-off, obtained by increasing the amount of ultrasonographic gel inside the probe’s cover, for better visualization of the vaginal walls and posterior and anterior fornix (previously described in detail) (Guerriero et al., 2007
) (Fig. 1), in the week before surgery. The operator also evaluated with particular attention the painful sites evocated by a gentle pressure of the probe. All scans were performed by one investigator (G.S.) who had more than 15 years of experience with transvaginal ultrasonography at the onset of the study.
|
On the basis of our desire to have a specificity and a sensitivity of 90%, we aimed to recruit a minimum of 80 symptomatic women, of whom 40% would have deep endometriosis in one of the different considered pelvis localization. This sample size would enable an estimation of sensitivity and specificity within 20%.
By ultrasonography, deep endometriosis implants were suspected from the presence of hypoechoic linear thickening or nodules/masses with or without regular contours in five locations: (i) vaginal walls (Fig. 2), (ii) rectovaginal septum (Fig. 3), (iii) rectosigmoid involvement (Fig. 4), (iv) uterosacral ligaments (Fig. 5) and (v) anterior compartment (anterior pouch and/or bladder) (Fig. 6). In particular, rectosigmoid involvement was suspected in cases which showed the presence of nodules which had thin band-like echoes departing from the centre of the mass that were defined as ‘Indian head dress’ (Fig. 4). Also the anterior compartment was examined to evaluate the presence of bladder endometriosis (Figs 1 and 6).
|
|
|
|
|
The reproducibility of the technique was determined by evaluating 10 symptomatic patients by two examiners, each with a different level of expertise in ultrasonography in gynecology: a highly experienced examiner (S.A.) with 10 years experience and an expert (S.G.) with more than 15 years experience. Intraobserver agreement was good or very good for both the examiners with different degrees of experience (kappa values ranging from 0.75 to 0.88). Interobserver agreement between expert and highly experienced operator was good (kappa value of 0.70).
In accordance with Bazot et al. (2004b), at laparoscopy, deep pelvic endometriosis was diagnosed from the following: (i) presence of endometrial tissue (endometrial gland and stroma) at histopathological examination of at least one resected subperitoneal lesion; (ii) direct visualization of a deep pelvic lesion of endometriosis associated with only fibrosis at biopsy, or without biopsy of the deep lesion (in this case, subperitoneal endometriosis was diagnosed on the basis of the presence of another histologically proved location of endometriosis) and (iii) complete cul-de-sac obliteration secondary to endometriosis was observed (in this case, the tissue that caused the obliteration was unresectable because the surgeons considered it too risky or because the patient refused to undergo surgical removal of deep endometriosis). The findings at modified transvaginal ultrasonography were compared with the findings at surgery with histopathological confirmation of presence of endometriosis. Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR+/–) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), according to STARD Statement for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (Bossuyt et al., 2003).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
We included in the study 88 women. The mean age (±SD) of the study population was 33 ± 5 years, ranging from 20 to 45 years. The indication for surgery was clinically suspected endometriosis on the basis of patient clinical examination associated with pelvic pain in all 88 patients, of whom 10 patients had associated infertility. Forty patients (45%) reported the presence of dyspareunia and 71 (81%) the presence of dysmenorrhea. All 88 had previous treatment for persistent pelvic pain with medications (estroprogestins and/or GnRH agonist and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for at least 2 years.
Surgery associated with histopathological evaluation revealed deep endometriosis in different pelvic locations in 72 patients. Vaginal walls involvement was present in 34 patients. Rectosigmoid involvement was present in 39 patients. Uterosacral ligaments involvement was present in 24 patients. Rectovaginal septum involvement was present in 46 patients. Anterior compartment (anterior pouch and/or bladder) involvement was present in 18 patients including four patients with bladder involvement. Isolated deep endometriosis was detected in the vagina in five (7%) cases, rectosigmoid involvement in one (1.3%) case, in the rectovaginal septum in nine cases (12.5%), in the uterosacral ligaments in 5 (7%) cases and in the anterior compartment in two cases (2.7%).
The mean time for the performance of the technique was 15–20 min in cases where the presence of deep endometriosis was suspected, less if not suspected. The mean (±SD) ultrasonographic diameter of endometriotic nodules was 16 ± 8 mm, ranging from 10 to 34 mm. The sensitivity, specificity and LR for the five considered locations are reported in Table I. The pre-test probability of vaginal involvement of deep pelvic endometriosis in our population was 39% and this probability of disease rose to 84% when the test was positive and decreased to 6% when the test was negative. The pre-test probability of rectosigmoid involvement of deep pelvic endometriosis in our population was 44% and this probability of disease rose to 87% when the test was positive and decreased to 22% when the test was negative.
|
The pre-test probability of uterosacral ligaments involvement of deep pelvic endometriosis in our population was 27% and this probability of disease rose to 75% when the test was positive and decreased to 17% when the test was negative. The pre-test probability of rectovaginal septum involvement of deep pelvic endometriosis in our population was 52% and this probability of disease rose to 87% when the test was positive and decreased to 25% when the test was negative. The pre-test probability of anterior pouch involvement of deep pelvic endometriosis in our population was 20% and this probability of disease rose to 100% when the test was positive and decreased to 67% when the test was negative.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
The delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis is extremely long for a disease associated with a wide rage of related symptoms including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, dyspareunia, bowel upset, bowel pain, infertility, presence of ovarian mass and dysuria, with the time to diagnosis reported as ranging from 5 to 8 years in recently published papers (Arruda et al., 2003
; Husby et al., 2003; Sinaii et al., 2008). In addition, this delay does not seem to relate to the extent of the disease (Sinaii et al., 2008). A recent study performed among 1000 women with endometriosis showed that patients with milder disease have a time to diagnosis from the onset of symptoms which is not significantly different in comparison with patients with more severe disease including those with rectovaginal nodules (Sinaii et al., 2008). In our opinion, the awareness of the existence of a non-invasive technique such as ultrasonography that may be able to investigate also the different locations of deep endometriosis might reduce this delay, as previously suggested for pelvic adhesions (Guerriero et al., 1997; Okaro et al., 2006) and for ovarian endometriomas (Guerriero et al., 1998; Alcazar, 2001).
The use of an efficient but less invasive technique might not only decrease the waiting time for a laparoscopy, but may in some cases avoid this procedure if too risky, as in the case of a rectosigmoid involvement, and hence permit an effective medical therapy based on the administration of economic drugs such as oral contraceptives (Vercellini et al., 2008).
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has also been used for the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis and Bazot et al. (2004a) reported an overall good accuracy with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 91%. However, other authors reported lower values (Abrao et al., 2007) and in certain locations this technique was found to lack sensitivity, as in the presence of rectal involvement (Kinkel et al., 1999). Also in cases of rectovaginal septum involvement, the sensitivity reported in a recent paper of Bazot et al. (2007b) was only 44%. For all these arguments and with regard to the greater expense of MRI, it can be considered to have less cost-effectiveness in comparison with ultrasonography.
Because of its high diffusion and relatively low cost and discomfort, transvaginal ultrasonography should be considered as the first-line procedure, even if it has had controversial results in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis (Table II). The present study demonstrates that our reproducible technique, guided by tenderness of the site during examination and by the creation of a stand-off to visualize the near field area of posterior and anterior fornices and the vaginal walls, shows a high specificity and sensitivity in the detection of vaginal and rectovaginal endometriosis (Table I). A good specificity, but associated with lower sensitivity, was also obtained in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis of uterosacral ligaments, rectosigmoid involvement or anterior deep endometriosis (Table I). Our results in the vaginal involvement are better than those reported by other authors who observed sensitivities ranging from 25% to 50% (Table II). Regarding rectovaginal involvement, a very wide range of sensitivities have been reported in the literature ranging from 11% to 98% (Table II). Our results are relatively good with a sensitivity of 74% (Table I).
|
One of the limitations of this study is the relatively small sample size for some locations as uterosacral involvement, which may lead to wide confidence intervals. Lesions involving uterosacral ligaments are also usually smaller than those at other locations. Bazot has reported in different studies a relatively wide range of sensitivity (81–71%) and specificity (96–75%) (Bazot et al., 2004a
,2007a) (Table II) in this particular location. As reported byAbrao et al. (2007), the principal limiting factor of transvaginal evaluation, which was found in only a few patients and which did not significantly affects results, was that of significant pain in the Douglas pouch.
The wide range of accuracy reported in the literature (Table II) may be due to differences in the prevalence of deep endometriosis in the different locations among different studies (Table II) or because of the different ‘definitions’ of deep endometriosis that are presented by different authors (Bazot et al., 2003, 2004a, 2007a; Abrao et al., 2007). Concerning these relevant problems, a pioneer in the studies on endometriosis states that ‘the enthusiasm to recognize and to treat deep endometriosis is already producing and will continue to produce a progressive shift of the severity of the reported series of deep endometriosis’ (Koninckx, 1998). In our study, the endometriosis was extensively searched for in all the different pelvic locations, and for these reasons, lesions were isolated in only a few cases.
In our opinion, this technique may allow an accurate preoperative evaluation in selecting patients for the correct kind of surgery. In addition, this procedure should be used not only for the follow-up during medical therapy but also in the absence of therapy (Fedele et al., 2004) to evaluate the possible progression of the disease. This more detailed ultrasonography can be performed by every skilled operator in gynecological ultrasonography (as suggested by the good reproducibility demonstrated in the present study). However, the gynecologist who does not perform this procedure should know of the potential of this non-invasive procedure in the identification of deep endometriosis in different locations. Also the physicians should be made aware of this new technique, since it has been demonstrated that a specialist gynecologist sensitive to the problem of pelvic pain can decrease the delay in diagnosis (Greene et al., 2008). In conclusion, there has been an increase in the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging methodologies associated with the improvement in the capability of surgical techniques as laparoscopy. This, together with the wide range of effective drugs against the major symptoms, means that the creation of a one-stop endometriosis clinic can be finally proposed, enabling most patients to benefit from the need for a only single hospital visit and the availability of immediate results. This approach could significantly shorten ‘the interval’ between referral and initiation of treatment, surgical or medical, as previously demonstrated in cases of recurrent miscarriage (Habayeb and Konje, 2004).
|
Author’s Role |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
Design and institution of the study protocol, collection and analysis of data, drafting the article, final preparation of the article and approval of the final version—S.G.
Review of the article, approval of the final version—S.A.
Collection and analysis of data, approval of the final version—M.G.
Acquisition of data, revising the article, approval the final version—B.V.
Revising the article, final approval—S.A.
Revision of the study protocol, review of the article, approval of the final version—G.B.M.
Conflict of interest: All authors state that they have nothing to declare.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor's RoleReferences |
|---|
Abrao MS, Gonçalves MO, Dias JA Jr, Podgaec S, Chamie LP, Blasbalg R. Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod (2007) 22:3092–3097.
Alcazar JL. Transvaginal colour Doppler in patients with ovarian endometriomas and pelvic pain. Hum Reprod (2001) 16:2672–2675.
Angioni S, Peiretti M, Zirone M, Palomba M, Mais V, Gomel V, Melis GB. Laparoscopic excision of posterior vaginal fornix in the treatment of patients with deep endometriosis without rectum involvement: surgical treatment and long-term follow-up. Hum Reprod (2006) 21:1629–1634.
Arruda MS, Petta CA, Abrão MS, Benetti-Pinto CL. Time elapsed from onset of symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis in a cohort study of Brazilian women. Hum Reprod (2003) 18:756–759.
Bazot M, Detchev R, Cortez A, Amouyal P, Uzan S, Darai E. Transvaginal sonography and rectal endoscopic sonography for the assessment of pelvic endometriosis: a preliminary comparison. Hum Reprod (2003) 18:1686–1692.
Bazot M, Thomassin I, Hourani R, Cortez A, Darai E. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol (2004) a 24:180–185.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R, Thomassin I, Cortez A, Uzan S, Buy JN. Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology (2004) b 232:379–389.
Bazot M, Malzy P, Cortez A, Roseau G, Amouyal P, Daraï E. Accuracy of transvaginal sonography and rectal endoscopic sonography in the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol (2007) a 30:994–1001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bazot M, Bornier C, Dubernard G, Roseau G, Cortez A, Daraï E. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography for the prediction of location of deep pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod (2007) b 22:1457–1463.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med (2003) 138:40–44.
Chapron C, Dubuisson JB, Pansini V, Vieira M, Fauconnier A, Barakat H, Dousset B. Routine clinical examination is not sufficient for diagnosing and locating deeply infiltrating endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc (2002) 9:115–119.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Dessole S, Farina M, Rubattu G, Cosmi E, Ambrosini G, Nardelli GB. Sonovaginography is a new technique for assessing rectovaginal endometriosis. Fertil Steril (2003) 79:1023–1027.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Fedele L, Bianchi S, Zanconato G, Raffaelli R, Berlanda N. Is rectovaginal endometriosis a progressive disease? Am J Obstet Gynecol (2004) 191:1539–1542.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Greene R, Stratton P, Cleary SD, Ballweg ML, Sinaii N. Diagnostic experience among 4,334 women reporting surgically diagnosed endometriosis. Fertil Steril (2008) March 24 (Epub ahead of print).
Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Lai MP, Mais V, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pelvic adhesions. Hum Reprod (1997) 12:2649–2653.
Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Mais V, Risalvato A, Lai MP, Melis GB. The diagnosis of endometriomas using colour Doppler energy imaging. Hum Reprod (1998) 13:1691–1695.
Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Gerada M, D’Aquila M, Piras B, Melis GB. ‘Tenderness-guided’ transvaginal ultrasonography: a new method for the detection of deep endometriosis in patients with chronic pelvic pain. Fertil Steril (2007) 88:1293–1297.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Habayeb OM, Konje JC. The one-stop recurrent miscarriage clinic: an evaluation of its effectiveness and outcome. Hum Reprod (2004) 19:2952–2958.
Husby GK, Haugen RS, Moen MH. Diagnostic delay in women with pain and endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2003) 82:649–653.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kinkel K, Chapron C, Balleyguier C, Fritel X, Dubuisson JB, Moreau JF. Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod (1999) 14:1080–1086.
Koninckx PR. Biases in the endometriosis literature. Illustrated by 20 years of endometriosis research in Leuven. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (1998) 81:259–271.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Koninckx PR, Meuleman C, Demeyere S, Lesaffre E, Cornillie FJ. Suggestive evidence that pelvic endometriosis is a progressive disease, whereas deeply infiltrating endometriosis is associated with pelvic pain. Fertil Steril (1991) 55:759–755.[Web of Science][Medline]
Okaro E, Condous G, Khalid A, Timmerman D, Ameye L, Huffel SV, Bourne T. The use of ultrasound-based ‘soft markers’ for the prediction of pelvic pathology in women with chronic pelvic pain—can we reduce the need for laparoscopy? BJOG (2006) 113:251–256.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Sinaii N, Plumb K, Cotton L, Lambert A, Kennedy S, Zondervan K, Stratton P. Differences in characteristics among 1,000 women with endometriosis based on extent of disease. Fertil Steril (2008) 89:538–545.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Vercellini P, Somigliana E, Viganò P, Abbiati A, Daguati R, Crosignani PG. Endometriosis: current and future medical therapies. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol (2008) 22:275–306.[CrossRef][Medline]
Submitted on April 18, 2008; resubmitted on June 16, 2008; accepted on July 4, 2008.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Guerriero, J. L. Alcazar, S. Ajossa, M. Pilloni, and G. B. Melis Three-Dimensional Sonographic Characteristics of Deep Endometriosis J. Ultrasound Med., August 1, 2009; 28(8): 1061 - 1066. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Abrao, M. O. C. Goncalves, S. Ajossa, G. B. Melis, S. Guerriero, and T. Bignardi The Sonographic Diagnosis of Deep Endometriosis * Reply J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2009; 28(3): 408 - 410. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||