Loading…
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...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Clinical radiology 2020-07, Vol.75 (7), p.543-551 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| 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!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3 |
| container_end_page | 551 |
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 543 |
| container_title | Clinical radiology |
| container_volume | 75 |
| creator | Nishio, N. Kido, A. Kurata, Y. Minami, M. Tokunaga, K. Honda, M. Mandai, M. Togashi, K. |
| description | 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 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.crad.2020.02.013 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2383511497</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0009926020300830</els_id><sourcerecordid>2383511497</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFuEzEQhi1URNPCC3BAe-xll_HYyXYlLqhqaaQiJAQSNzPrnU0dbexgO5Xy9nhJ4chpNKPv_6X5hHgroZEgV--3jY00NAgIDWADUr0QC6lWyxqx-3EmFgDQ1R2u4FxcpLSdV436lThXiNChWi3Ez7V_4pTdhrILvgpjZSfnnaWpOmQ3uXz8cws-R0q5Zv9I3vJQff66rpyv8iNXg6OND8mlmWSbw97Zah954wt6fC1ejjQlfvM8L8X3u9tvN_f1w5dP65uPD7XVALnuJFkcbSuZNYNqeTlQS60G1ESEI_U9FkaNfat0L4FbvFbKktKdHhVZdSmuTr37GH4dyktm55LlaSLP4ZAMqmu1lFJ3bUHxhNoYUoo8mn10O4pHI8HMZs3WzGbNbNYAmmK2hN499x_6HQ__In9VFuDDCeDy5ZPjaJJ1PMtysVgxQ3D_6_8NCsiLEg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2383511497</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Nishio, N. ; Kido, A. ; Kurata, Y. ; Minami, M. ; Tokunaga, K. ; Honda, M. ; Mandai, M. ; Togashi, K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Nishio, N. ; Kido, A. ; Kurata, Y. ; Minami, M. ; Tokunaga, K. ; Honda, M. ; Mandai, M. ; Togashi, K.</creatorcontrib><description>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<0.0001) in the inexpert group. Intergroup comparison revealed that confidence level was significantly higher in the expert group than in the inexpert group using non-CE MRI (p<0.0001), although the difference was not significant at non-CE+CE MRI (p=0.49).
CE-MRI did not significantly improve correct identification of ectopic pregnancy implantation sites, although the addition of contrast enhancement did enable inexpert radiologists to diagnose confidently.
•Contrast-enhanced MR images did not improve identification of implantation site.•Reading experience did not influence the identification of implantation site.•Inexpert readers might benefit from contrast-enhanced MR images.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-9260</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-229X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.02.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32209236</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Clinical radiology, 2020-07, Vol.75 (7), p.543-551</ispartof><rights>2020 The Royal College of Radiologists</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209236$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nishio, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kido, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurata, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minami, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tokunaga, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honda, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandai, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Togashi, K.</creatorcontrib><title>Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy</title><title>Clinical radiology</title><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><description>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<0.0001) in the inexpert group. Intergroup comparison revealed that confidence level was significantly higher in the expert group than in the inexpert group using non-CE MRI (p<0.0001), although the difference was not significant at non-CE+CE MRI (p=0.49).
CE-MRI did not significantly improve correct identification of ectopic pregnancy implantation sites, although the addition of contrast enhancement did enable inexpert radiologists to diagnose confidently.
•Contrast-enhanced MR images did not improve identification of implantation site.•Reading experience did not influence the identification of implantation site.•Inexpert readers might benefit from contrast-enhanced MR images.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnosis</subject><subject>Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0009-9260</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMFuEzEQhi1URNPCC3BAe-xll_HYyXYlLqhqaaQiJAQSNzPrnU0dbexgO5Xy9nhJ4chpNKPv_6X5hHgroZEgV--3jY00NAgIDWADUr0QC6lWyxqx-3EmFgDQ1R2u4FxcpLSdV436lThXiNChWi3Ez7V_4pTdhrILvgpjZSfnnaWpOmQ3uXz8cws-R0q5Zv9I3vJQff66rpyv8iNXg6OND8mlmWSbw97Zah954wt6fC1ejjQlfvM8L8X3u9tvN_f1w5dP65uPD7XVALnuJFkcbSuZNYNqeTlQS60G1ESEI_U9FkaNfat0L4FbvFbKktKdHhVZdSmuTr37GH4dyktm55LlaSLP4ZAMqmu1lFJ3bUHxhNoYUoo8mn10O4pHI8HMZs3WzGbNbNYAmmK2hN499x_6HQ__In9VFuDDCeDy5ZPjaJJ1PMtysVgxQ3D_6_8NCsiLEg</recordid><startdate>202007</startdate><enddate>202007</enddate><creator>Nishio, N.</creator><creator>Kido, A.</creator><creator>Kurata, Y.</creator><creator>Minami, M.</creator><creator>Tokunaga, K.</creator><creator>Honda, M.</creator><creator>Mandai, M.</creator><creator>Togashi, K.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202007</creationdate><title>Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy</title><author>Nishio, N. ; Kido, A. ; Kurata, Y. ; Minami, M. ; Tokunaga, K. ; Honda, M. ; Mandai, M. ; Togashi, K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnosis</topic><topic>Pregnancy, Ectopic - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nishio, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kido, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurata, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minami, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tokunaga, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honda, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandai, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Togashi, K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nishio, N.</au><au>Kido, A.</au><au>Kurata, Y.</au><au>Minami, M.</au><au>Tokunaga, K.</au><au>Honda, M.</au><au>Mandai, M.</au><au>Togashi, K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy</atitle><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><date>2020-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>543</spage><epage>551</epage><pages>543-551</pages><issn>0009-9260</issn><eissn>1365-229X</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>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<0.0001) in the inexpert group. Intergroup comparison revealed that confidence level was significantly higher in the expert group than in the inexpert group using non-CE MRI (p<0.0001), although the difference was not significant at non-CE+CE MRI (p=0.49).
CE-MRI did not significantly improve correct identification of ectopic pregnancy implantation sites, although the addition of contrast enhancement did enable inexpert radiologists to diagnose confidently.
•Contrast-enhanced MR images did not improve identification of implantation site.•Reading experience did not influence the identification of implantation site.•Inexpert readers might benefit from contrast-enhanced MR images.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32209236</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.crad.2020.02.013</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0009-9260 |
| ispartof | Clinical radiology, 2020-07, Vol.75 (7), p.543-551 |
| issn | 0009-9260 1365-229X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2383511497 |
| source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection |
| 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 |
| title | Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T11%3A43%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Investigation%20of%20clinical%20utility%20of%20contrast-enhanced%20MRI%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20ectopic%20pregnancy&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20radiology&rft.au=Nishio,%20N.&rft.date=2020-07&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=543&rft.epage=551&rft.pages=543-551&rft.issn=0009-9260&rft.eissn=1365-229X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.crad.2020.02.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2383511497%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-91ac2fc71ee4e037e5da7a74024aaa2fabb291a3fb734b10e72833ca3494f3ac3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2383511497&rft_id=info:pmid/32209236&rfr_iscdi=true |