Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adenomyosis: Transvaginal Ultrasound and Imaging Innovations for Diagnosis

  • REVIEW
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

There have been considerable advances in recent years using transvaginal sonography (TVUS) to diagnose adenomyosis. The diagnosis, however, is highly dependent upon the recognition of specific sonographic features as defined by the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) statement. The main goal of this article is to review the literature in the last 5 years on specific TVUS features and imaging innovations for its diagnosis. We also sought to identify studies that evaluated the association between imaging-diagnosed adenomyosis and other clinical conditions.

Recent Findings

Direct and indirect imaging signs of adenomyosis have been characterized for diagnosis. Although sonographic features and signs such as junctional zone ≥ 8 mm, question mark sign, fan-shaped striations, uterine biometric parameters, and uterine tenderness during the exam have been evaluated for diagnostic accuracy, no conclusions as yet can be made regarding the best TVUS imaging feature or a combination thereof for its diagnosis. Adenomyosis as suggested by TVUS findings is highly associated in patients with endometriosis and infertility. In particular, findings of external adenomyosis compared to internal adenomyosis are strongly correlated to patients with deep endometriosis. Studies suggest that scoring systems utilizing multiple sonographic observations or sonographic observations combined with patient clinical factors may improve accuracy. Imaging innovations using sonoelastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound hold promise, notably in differentiating adenomyoma from leiomyoma.

Summary

The accuracy of various TVUS imaging features and technologies has recently been evaluated for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Improved recognition and reporting of these patterns will be key to confirming and clarifying the associations of adenomyosis to other conditions such as endometriosis and infertility that may direct clinical management and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •  Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4(4):312–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/4.4.312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Taran FA, Wallwiener M, Kabashi D, Rothmund R, Rall K, Kraemer B, et al. Clinical characteristics indicating adenomyosis at the time of hysterectomy: a retrospective study in 291 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1571–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2180-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sharma K, Bora MK, Venkatesh BP, Barman P, Roy SK, Jayagurunathan U, et al. Role of 3D ultrasound and Doppler in differentiating clinically suspected cases of leiomyoma and adenomyosis of uterus. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4):QC08–12. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/12240.5846.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu L, Li W, Leonardi M, Condous G, Da Silva CF, Mol BW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis and review of sonographic diagnostic criteria. J Ultrasound Med. 2021;40(11):2289–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, Valentin L, Rasmussen CK, Votino A, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(3):284–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrão MS, Kho RM. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(2):257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Holland T, Jurkovic D. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3432–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des332.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Orlov S, Jokubkiene L. Prevalence of endometriosis and adenomyosis at transvaginal ultrasound examination in symptomatic women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(5):524–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mishra I, Melo P, Easter C, Sephton V, Dhillon-Smith R, Coomarasamy A. Prevalence of adenomyosis in women with subfertility: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Donato N, Montanari G, Benfenati A, Leonardi D, Bertoldo V, Monti G, et al. Prevalence of adenomyosis in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;181:289–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Olgan S, Dirican EK, Ozsipahi AC, Sakinci M. Uterine involvement by endometriosis: sonographic features from elusive findings to apparent adenomyosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;262:93–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Exacoustos C, De Felice G, Pizzo A, Morosetti G, Lazzeri L, Centini G, et al. Isolated ovarian endometrioma: a history between myth and reality. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(5):884–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.12.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Eisenberg VH, Arbib N, Schiff E, Goldenberg M, Seidman DS, Soriano D. Sonographic signs of adenomyosis are prevalent in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis and may suggest a higher risk of infertility. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8967803. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8967803.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. •• Bourdon M, Oliveira J, Marcellin L, Santulli P, Bordonne C, Maitrot Mantelet L, et al. Adenomyosis of the inner and outer myometrium are associated with different clinical profiles. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(2):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa307. Findings from this study suggest that imaging features of external adenomyosis is associated with deep endometriosis.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zanolli NC, Cline BC, Befera NT, Martin JG. Diagnostic accuracy of clinically reported adenomyosis on pelvic ultrasound and MRI compared to surgical pathology. Clin Imaging. 2022;82:117–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.11.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harmsen MJ, Van den Bosch T, de Leeuw RA, Dueholm M, Exacoustos C, Valentin L, et al. Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;60(1):118–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24786.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. • Zannoni L, Ambrosio M, Raimondo D, Arena A, Del Forno S, Borghese G, et al. Question mark sign and transvaginal ultrasound uterine tenderness for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: a prospective validation. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(7):1405–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15237. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiple TVUS features for adenomyosis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xholli A, Scovazzi U, Londero AP, Evangelisti G, Cavalli E, Schiaffino MG, et al. Angle of uterine flexion and adenomyosis. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113214.

  19. Raimondo D, Lazzeri L, Raffone A, Giorgi M, Orsini B, Verrelli L, et al. Sonographic assessment of uterine biometry for the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis in a tertiary outpatient clinic. J Pers Med. 2022;12(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12101572.

  20. Görgülü FF, Okçu NT. Which imaging method is better for the differentiation of adenomyosis and uterine fibroids? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(5):102002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu X, Ding D, Ren Y, Guo SW. Transvaginal elastosonography as an imaging technique for diagnosing adenomyosis. Reprod Sci. 2018;25(4):498–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719117750752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pongpunprut S, Panburana P, Wibulpolprasert P, Waiyaput W, Sroyraya M, Chansoon T, et al. A comparison of shear wave elastography between normal myometrium, uterine fibroids, and adenomyosis: a cross-sectional study. Int J Fertil Steril. 2022;16(1):49–54. https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2021.523075.1074.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Săsăran V, Turdean S, Gliga M, Ilyes L, Grama O, Muntean M, et al. Value of strain-ratio elastography in the diagnosis and differentiation of uterine fibroids and adenomyosis. J Pers Med. 2021;11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080824.

  24. Săsăran V, Turdean S, Mărginean C, Gliga M, Ilyes L, Grama O, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound combined with strain-ratio elastography for the concomitant diagnosis of uterine fibroids and adenomyosis: a pilot study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133757.

  25. Stoelinga B, Hehenkamp WJK, Nieuwenhuis LL, Conijn MMA, van Waesberghe J, Brölmann HAM, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of sonoelastography for the assessment of fibroids and adenomyosis, with magnetic resonance imaging as reference standard. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(8):1654–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.03.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Xholli A, Molinari F, Oppedisano F, Scovazzi U, Vacca I, Schiaffino MG, et al. Relation between adenomyosis and elastographic characteristics of the cervix. Hum Reprod. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Xholli A, Simoncini G, Vujosevic S, Trombetta G, Chiodini A, Ferraro MF, et al. Menstrual pain and elasticity of uterine cervix. J Clin Med. 2021;10(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051110.

  28. Xie M, Yu H, Zhang X, Wang W, Ren Y. Elasticity of adenomyosis is increased after GnRHa therapy and is associated with spontaneous pregnancy in infertile patents. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(10):849–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang M, Wasnik AP, Masch WR, Rubin JM, Carlos RC, Quint EH, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound shear wave elastography for the evaluation of benign uterine pathologies: a prospective pilot study. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(1):149–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sigrist RMS, Liau J, Kaffas AE, Chammas MC, Willmann JK. Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications. Theranostics. 2017;7(5):1303–29. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.18650.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang YQ, Chen JH, Zhu TT, Zhao AX, Zhuang LT, Lu CY, et al. Applying contrast-enhanced ultrasound model to distinguish atypical focal adenomyosis from uterine leiomyomas. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(20):1108. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-4460.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Grigore M, Popovici R, Himiniuc LM, Scripcariu IS, Toma BF, Grigore AM, et al. The added value of three-dimensional ultrasonography in uterine pathology. Exp Ther Med. 2021;22(5):1261. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.10696.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Marques ALS, Andres MP, Mattos LA, Gonçalves MO, Baracat EC, Abrão MS. Association of 2D and 3D transvaginal ultrasound findings with adenomyosis in symptomatic women of reproductive age: a prospective study. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021;76:e2981. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2021/e2981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rasmussen CK, Hansen ES, Dueholm M. Inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of adenomyosis by 2- and 3-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(3):657–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rasmussen CK, Hansen ES, Ernst E, Dueholm M. Two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for diagnosis of adenomyosis of the inner myometrium. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(5):750–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Decter D, Arbib N, Markovitz H, Seidman DS, Eisenberg VH. Sonographic signs of adenomyosis in women with endometriosis are associated with infertility. J Clin Med. 2021;10(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10112355.

  37. Zhu J, Liu S, Gao D. Application of color Doppler ultrasound in microscopic imaging diagnosis of adenomyosis. Scanning. 2022;2022:2366871. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2366871.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Li J, Chen J, Wang Y, Hu L, Zhang R, Chen W. Doppler imaging assessment of changes of blood flow in adenomyosis after higher-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial. J Ultrasound Med. 2022;41(10):2413–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. • Exacoustos C, Morosetti G, Conway F, Camilli S, Martire FG, Lazzeri L, et al. New sonographic classification of adenomyosis: do type and degree of adenomyosis correlate to severity of symptoms? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(6):1308–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.788. This large multicenter trial evaluated a new classification scoring system that correlated the type and degree of adenomyosis to clinical symptoms, including fertility, based on transvaginal ultrasound features.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yildirir M, Aytan H, Durukan H, Gurses I. A clinical scoring system for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;19(2):138–44. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.88289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. AIUM. practice parameter for the performance of an ultrasound examination of the female pelvis. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(5):E17–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Scott W. Young

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix/Banner University Medical Center Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Nuria Luna Ramirez & Rosanne M. Kho

Authors
  1. Scott W. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nuria Luna Ramirez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosanne M. Kho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nuria Luna Ramirez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All three authors have no financial disclosures.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, S.W., Ramirez, N.L. & Kho, R.M. Adenomyosis: Transvaginal Ultrasound and Imaging Innovations for Diagnosis. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 12, 178–185 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-023-00364-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-023-00364-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation