MRI in female pelvis: an ESUR/ESR survey

Stephanie Nougaret, Yulia Lakhman, Sophie Gourgou, Rahel Kubik-Huch, Lorenzo Derchi, Evis Sala, Rosemarie Forstner, European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), Stephanie Nougaret, Yulia Lakhman, Sophie Gourgou, Rahel Kubik-Huch, Lorenzo Derchi, Evis Sala, Rosemarie Forstner, European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)

Abstract

Objectives: While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the gold standard for the imaging of female pelvis, there is an ongoing debate about the most appropriate indications and optimal imaging protocols. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) launched a survey to evaluate the current utilization of female pelvic MRI in clinical practice.

Methods: The ESUR female imaging subgroup developed an online survey that was then approved by the ESR board and circulated among the ESR members. The questions in the survey encompassed training and experience, indications for imaging and MR imaging protocols, reporting styles and preferences. The results of the survey were tabulated, and subgroups were compared using χ2 test.

Results: A total of 5900 ESR members with an interest in both MRI and female pelvic imaging were invited to participate; 840 (14.23%) members completed the survey. Approximately 50% of respondents were academic radiologists (50.6%) and nearly 60% women (59.69%). One third of the respondents were subspecialized in Gynecological imaging. Nearly half of the survey participants were aware of the presence of ESUR guidelines for imaging of the female pelvis (47.1%). The adoption of the ESUR recommendations was higher among subspecialized and/or academic and/or senior and/or European radiologists compared to all others. The current ESUR recommendations about female pelvic MRI protocols were generally followed. However wide variations in practice were identified with respect to the use of contrast media.

Conclusion: Female pelvic MRI protocol was generally following the ESUR recommendations, especially among subspecialized and academic radiologists. However, the fact that they are followed by only half of the participants highlights the need for wider awareness of these recommendations.

Keywords: Gynaecology; Magnetic resonance imaging; Practice guideline; Radiologists; Survey and questionnaires.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the participants
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Indications for pelvic MRI

References

    1. Ledermann JA, Sessa C, Colombo N, et al. Appendix 7: ovarian cancer: eUpdate published online September 2016 () Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v145. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw360.
    1. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Querleu D, et al. Appendix 5: Endometrial cancer: eUpdate published online 8 June 2017 () Ann Oncol. 2017;28(suppl_4):iv153–iv156. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx243.
    1. Maciel C, Bharwani N, Kubik-Huch RA, et al. MRI of female genital tract congenital anomalies: European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(8):4272–4283. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06750-8.
    1. Jha P, Poder L, Bourgioti C, et al. Society of abdominal radiology (SAR) and European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) joint consensus statement for MR imaging of placenta accreta spectrum disorders. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(5):2604–2615. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06617-7.
    1. Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, et al. Endometrial Cancer MRI staging: updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(2):792–805. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5515-y.
    1. Kubik-Huch RA, Weston M, Nougaret S, et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Guidelines: MR Imaging of Leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(8):3125–3137. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5157-5.
    1. Forstner R, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cunha TM, et al. ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(6):2248–2257. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4600-3.
    1. El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction—joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2067–2085. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4471-7.
    1. Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2765–2775. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4673-z.
    1. Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting data system magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1919896. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19896.
    1. Forstner R, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cunha TM, et al. Erratum to: ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(6):2258. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4656-0.
    1. Manganaro L, Lakhman Y, Bharwani N, et al. Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: updated guidelines of the European society of urogenital radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018. Eur Radiol. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07632-9.
    1. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):2–30. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000609.
    1. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Radiother Oncol. 2015;117(3):559–581. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.11.013.
    1. Daix M, Angeles MA, Migliorelli F, et al. Concordance between preoperative ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classification and final histology in early-stage endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021;32(4):e48. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e48.
    1. Vieillefosse S, Huchon C, Chamming's F, et al. Assessment of different pre and intra-operative strategies to predict the actual ESMO risk group and to establish the appropriate indication of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(10):517–523. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.08.011.
    1. Wu LM, Xu JR, Gu HY, et al. Predictive value of T2-weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective studies. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):435–449. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2609-9.
    1. Chino J, Annunziata CM, Beriwal S, et al. The ASTRO clinical practice guidelines in cervical cancer: optimizing radiation therapy for improved outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(3):607–610. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.015.
    1. Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bean S, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(6):660–666. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0027.
    1. Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M, et al. Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;262(2):530–537. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110984.
    1. Nougaret S, Reinhold C, Alsharif SS, et al. Endometrial cancer: combined MR volumetry and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessment of myometrial and lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade. Radiology. 2015;276(3):797–808. doi: 10.1148/radiol.15141212.
    1. Kyriazi S, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of peritoneal disease for noninvasive staging of advanced ovarian cancer. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):1269–1285. doi: 10.1148/rg.305105073.
    1. Sahin H, Panico C, Ursprung S, et al. Non-contrast MRI can accurately characterize adnexal masses: a retrospective study. Eur Radiol. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07737-9.
    1. Costa AF, van der Pol CB, Maralani PJ, et al. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: a systematic review of existing guidelines and policy statement issued by the Canadian association of radiologists. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69(4):373–382. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2018.04.002.
    1. Choi JW, Moon WJ. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: current updates. Korean J Radiol. 2019;20(1):134–147. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2018.0356.
    1. Sadowski EA, Maturen KE, Rockall A, et al. Ovary: MRI characterisation and O-RADS MRI. Br J Radiol. 2021 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210157.
    1. European Society of R. ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 2018;9(1):1–7. 10.1007/s13244-017-0588-8
    1. Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L, et al. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.08.005.
    1. Nobel JM, Kok EM, Robben SGF. Redefining the structure of structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0831-6.
    1. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Benacerraf BR, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for ultrasound: a white paper of the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(10):1415–1429. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.004.
    1. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. Radiology. 2020;294(1):168–185. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191150.
    1. Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Sosa R, et al. Value of a standardized lexicon for reporting levels of diagnostic certainty in prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(6):W651–W657. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12654.
    1. Gransjoen AM, Wiig S, Lysdahl KB, et al. Barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence in diagnostic imaging: an explorative study of GPs' and radiologists' perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):556. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3372-7.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する