Accuracy of transvaginal sonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS One. 2019 Apr 9;14(4):e0214842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214842. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Introduction: Intestinal endometriosis is considered the most severe form of deep endometriosis, the rectosigmoid being involved in about 90% of cases of bowel infiltration. Transvaginal sonography (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been used for noninvasive diagnosis and preoperative mapping of rectosigmoid endometriosis (RE), but no consensus has been reached so far regarding which method is the most accurate in this setting.

Objective: We aimed at performing a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of TVS versus MRI in the diagnosis of RE in a same population.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases, as well the reference lists of retrieved articles, through February 2019. We included all cross-sectional studies that evaluated the accuracy of TVS versus MRI in the diagnosis of RE within a same sample of subjects and that used surgical findings with histological confirmation as the gold standard. The QUADAS-2 instrument was used to evaluate study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) for the diagnosis of RE were calculated. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017064378.

Results: Eight studies (n = 1132) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- values of MRI for RE were 90% (95% CI, 87-92%), 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 17.26 (95% CI, 3.57-83.50), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.23); values of TVS were 90% [95% CI, 87-92%], 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 20.66 (95% CI, 8.71-49.00) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08-0.20), respectively. Areas under the S-ROC curves (AUC) showed no statistically significant differences between MRI (AUC = 0.948) and TVS (AUC = 0.930) in the diagnosis of RE (P = 0.13). Moreover, considering the average prevalence among the studies of 47.3%, both methods demonstrated similarly high positive post-test probabilities (93.9% for TVS and 94.8% for MRI), and the combined use of them yielded a post-test probability of 99.6%.

Conclusion: MRI and TVS have similarly high accuracy and positive post-test probabilities in the noninvasive diagnosis of RE. Combination of MRI and TVS may increase even further the positive post-test probabilities to near 100%.

Grant support

The authors received no specific funding for this work.