Share this content in WeChat
Experience Exchange
Difference of MRI characteristics and HIFU related parameters of four subtypes of adenomyosis
ZHONG Yuqing  LIU Yang  HU Yan  LIU Yuhang  LÜ Fajin 

Cite this article as: Zhong YQ, Liu Y, Hu Y, et al. Difference of MRI characteristics and HIFU related parameters of four subtypes of adenomyosis[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(9): 95-99. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.09.018.

[Abstract] Objective To explore the differences of MRI characteristics and relevant parameters of high intensity focused ultrasound therapy of the four subtypes of adenomyosis based on magnetic.Materials and Methods A tatal of 203 cases with adenomyosis treated by high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) were retrospectively analyzed. According to the location relationship between the adenomyosis focus, the uterine junction zone and the endometrium shown by T2 weighted imaging (T2WI), the adenomyosis was divided into 43 cases of type Ⅰ (intrinsic), 48 cases of type Ⅱ (extrinsic), 29 cases of type Ⅲ (intrinsic) and 83 cases of type Ⅳ (intrinsic). The clinical data, preoperative MRI characteristics and postoperative treatment parameters of different subtypes were compared.Results The energy efficiency factor (EEF) of the four subtypes were 2.02, 3.18, 1.88, and 3.50 J/mm3 respectively. The nonperfused volume ration (NPVR) of the four subtypes were 47.78%, 39.98%, 88.57%, and 32.47% respectively. The differences of EEF and NPVR of the four subtypes were statistically significant (P<0.05). The differences of abortion history, fertility history and MRI characteristics of the four subtypes were statistically significant (P<0.05), and the differences of treatment time, irradiation time,irradiation dose, lesion volume and ablation volume of the four subtypes after HIFU ablation were statistically significant (P<0.05).Conclusions The difference of NPVR and EEF among the four subtypes after HIFU ablation was statistically significant (P<0.05). Therefore, this classification based on pathology and MRI is helpful for clinical preoperative decision-making.
[Keywords] adenomyosis;high intensity focused ultrasound;magnetic resonance imaging;nonperfused volume ration;energy efficiency factor

ZHONG Yuqing1   LIU Yang1, 2   HU Yan1   LIU Yuhang2   LÜ Fajin1, 2*  

1 State Key Laboratory of Ultrasound in Medicine and Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China

2 Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

*Lü FJ, E-mail:

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2022-05-30
Accepted  2022-09-07
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.09.018
Cite this article as: Zhong YQ, Liu Y, Hu Y, et al. Difference of MRI characteristics and HIFU related parameters of four subtypes of adenomyosis[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(9): 95-99.DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.09.018

Loring M, Chen TY, Isaacson KB. A systematic review of adenomyosis: it is time to reassess what we thought we knew about the disease[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2021, 28(3): 644-655. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.012.
Tellum T, Matic GV, Dormagen JB, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis with MRI: a prospective study revisiting the junctional zone thickness cutoff of 12 mm as a diagnostic marker[J]. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(12): 6971-6981. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06308-3.
Endometriosis Professional Committee of Gynecologist and Obstetrician Branch of Chinese Medical Doctor Association. Consensus of Chinese experts on diagnosis and treatment of adenomyosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020, 55 (06): 376-383. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20200228-00150.
Tan J, Yong P, Bedaiwy MA. A critical review of recent advances in the diagnosis, classification, and management of uterine adenomyosis[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 31(4): 212-221. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000555.
Du CC, Wang YQ, Qu DC, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging T2WI hyperintense foci number and the prognosis of adenomyosis after high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2021, 154(2): 241-247. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13587.
Keserci B, Duc NM. Magnetic resonance imaging features influencing high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of adenomyosis with a nonperfused volume ratio of ≥90% as a measure of clinical treatment success: retrospective multivariate analysis[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2018, 35(1): 626-636. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2018.1516301.
Chen LP, Lü FJ, Zheng YN, et al. Analysis of the influencing factors on the ablation rate of uterine fibroid by using high intensity focused ultrasound[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(11): 1019-1022, 1028. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.11.012.
Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, et al. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review[J]. Insights Imaging, 2017, 8(6): 549-556. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-017-0576-z.
French HM, Zhang WJ, Movilla PR, et al. Adenomyosis and fertility: does adenomyosis impact fertility and does treatment improve outcomes[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2022, 34(4): 227-236. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000789.
Chen S, Wang J, Sun W, et al. Efficacy of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device is associated with different subtypes of adenomyosis: a retrospective study[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(21): 1356. DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-3420.
Habiba M, Gordts S, Bazot M, et al. Exploring the challenges for a new classification of adenomyosis[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2020, 40(4): 569-581. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.01.017.
Gordts S, Grimbizis G, Campo R. Symptoms and classification of uterine adenomyosis, including the place of hysteroscopy in diagnosis[J/OL]. Fertil Steril, 2018, 109(3) [2022-05-01]. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.006.
Khan KN, Fujishita A, Koshiba A, et al. Biological differences between focal and diffuse adenomyosis and response to hormonal treatment[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2019, 38(4): 634-646. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.015.
Exacoustos C, Morosetti G, Conway F, et al. New sonographic classification of adenomyosis: do type and degree of adenomyosis correlate to severity of symptoms?[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2020, 27(6): 1308-1315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.788.
Kishi Y, Suginami H, Kuramori R, et al. Four subtypes of adenomyosis assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and their specification[J/OL]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 207(2) [2022-05-01]. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.027.
Matsubara S, Kawaguchi R, Akinishi M, et al. Subtype I (intrinsic) adenomyosis is an independent risk factor for dienogest-related serious unpredictable bleeding in patients with symptomatic adenomyosis[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1) [2022-05-01]. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-54096-z.
Gong CM, Yang B, Shi YR, et al. Factors influencing the ablative efficiency of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for adenomyosis: a retrospective study[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2016, 32(5): 496-503. DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2016.1149232.
Zheng YN, Chen LP, Liu MQ, et al. Nonenhanced MRI-based radiomics model for preoperative prediction of nonperfused volume ratio for high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine leiomyomas[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2021, 38(1): 1349-1358. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2021.1972170.
Wang Y, Wang ZB, Xu YH. Efficacy, efficiency, and safety of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound for ablation of uterine fibroids: comparison with ultrasound-guided method[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2018, 19(4): 724-732. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.724.
Gong CM, Setzen R, Liu ZQ, et al. High intensity focused ultrasound treatment of adenomyosis: the relationship between the features of magnetic resonance imaging on T2 weighted images and the therapeutic efficacy[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2017, 89: 117-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.001.
Gong CM, Wang YY, Lü FJ, et al. Evaluation of high intensity focused ultrasound treatment for different types of adenomyosis based on magnetic resonance imaging classification[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2022, 39(1): 530-538. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2022.2052366.
Kobayashi H, Matsubara S. A classification proposal for adenomyosis based on magnetic resonance imaging[J]. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 2020, 85(2): 118-126. DOI: 10.1159/000505690.
Nishida M, Itagaki H, Otsubo Y, et al. Histogenesis and classification of diffuse and cystic uterine adenomyosis[J/OL]. J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord, 2018, 10(1) [2022-05-01]. DOI: 10.1177/2284026518762926.
Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation[J]. Radiology, 1996, 199(1): 151-158. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.199.1.8633139.
Funaki K, Fukunishi H, Funaki T, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroids: relationship between the therapeutic effects and signal intensity of preexisting T2-weighted magnetic resonance images[J/OL]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 196(2) [2022-04-27]. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.08.030.
Zhang L, Rao FW, Setzen R. High intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of adenomyosis: selection criteria, efficacy, safety and fertility[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2017, 96(6): 707-714. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13159.

PREV Tumor regression grade after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: MRI and pathological control study
NEXT Dyke-Davidoff-Masson syndrome: One case report

Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: