Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy

To investigate whether contrast-enhanced (CE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves identification of implantation site of ectopic pregnancy. This retrospective study enrolled 63 patients in whom implantation sites had been confirmed at histopathology. Two expert radiologists for gynaecological...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical radiology 2020-07, Vol.75 (7), p.543-551
Main Authors: Nishio, N., Kido, A., Kurata, Y., Minami, M., Tokunaga, K., Honda, M., Mandai, M., Togashi, K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Contrast Media
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Pregnancy
Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnosis
Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnostic imaging
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To investigate whether contrast-enhanced (CE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves identification of implantation site of ectopic pregnancy. This retrospective study enrolled 63 patients in whom implantation sites had been confirmed at histopathology. Two expert radiologists for gynaecological imaging and two inexpert radiologists independently reviewed non-CE MRI and a combination of non-CE and CE-MRI (non-CE+CE-MRI), then determined implantation site with a confidence level. The following MRI features were also evaluated: extrauterine gestational sac (GS)-like structure (shape, signal intensities at T1-weighted imaging [WI], T2WI, and diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], presence of the three rings appearance, and distinct low intensity areas at T2WI, presence of tree or dot-like components, degree of contrast enhancement), fallopian tube (dilatation, dilatation with haematoma, degree of contrast enhancement, enhanced components within the tube), and ascites. These findings were compared for non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI data, and for expert and inexpert groups. The expert group identified implantation sites correctly in 58/63 (92%) cases for non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI. In the inexpert group, the correct identification was improved from 54/63 (86%) using non-CE MRI to 58/63 (92%) using non-CE+CE-MRI, but was not significant (p=0.29). In comparison between non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI, dilation of the fallopian tubes was observed more frequently (p=0.004) and the confidence level was elevated significantly in the non-CE+CE-MRI (p
ISSN:0009-9260
1365-229X
DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2020.02.013