Uterine MRI: A review of technique and diagnosis

Applied Radiology

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 18-29

  Sydow, Brian D ^a   Seigelman, Evan S ^b  

^a Northside Radiology Associates   (United States)

^b HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TAMOXIFEN;

ADENOMYOSIS; BREAST CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENDOMETRIUM ATROPHY; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; ENDOMETRIUM HYPERPLASIA; ENDOMETRIUM POLYP; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FUNCTIONAL ANATOMY; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LATERAL FUSION DISORDER; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MUELLERIAN DUCT ANOMALY; MUELLERIAN DUCT APLASIA; MUELLERIAN DUCT HYPOPLASIA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; REVIEW; SYMPTOM; UTERUS DISEASE; UTERUS MYOMA; UTERUS UNICORNIS; VERTICAL FUSION DISORDER;

EID: 55049105768     PISSN: 01609963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Kroencke TJ, Scheurig C, Kluner C, et al. Uterine fibroids: Contrast-enhanced MR angiography to predict ovarian artery supply - initial experience. Radiology. 2006;241:181-189.
2. Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, et al. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: Relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1992;183:795-800.
3. Togashi K, Nakai A, Sugimura K. Anatomy and physiology of the female pelvis: MR imaging revisited. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:842-849.
4. Chaudhry S, Reinhold C, Guermazi A, et al. Benign and malignant diseases of the endometrium. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14:339-357.
5. Imaoka I, Sugimura K, Masui T, et al. Abnormal uterine cavity: Differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;17:1445-1455.
6. Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: Comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199:151-158.
7. Murase E, Siegelman ES, Outwater EK, et al. Uterine leiomyomas: Histopathologic features, MR imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and treatment. RadioGraphics. 1999;19:1179-1197.
8. Kim JC, Kim SS, Park JY. "Bridging vascular sign" in the MR diagnosis of exophytic uterine leiomyoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:57-60.
9. Katsumori T, Akazawa K, Mihara T. Uterine artery embolization for pedunculated subserosal fibroids. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184:399-402.
10. Burn PR, McCall JM, Chinn RJ, et al. Uterine fibroleiomyoma: MR imaging appearances before and after embolization of uterine arteries. Radiology. 2000;214:729-734.
11. Abbara S, Spies JB, Scialli AR, et al. Transcervical expulsion of a fibroid as a result of uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:409-411. Comment in: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:1135.
12. Hovsepian DM, Siskin GP, Bonn J, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for uterine artery embolization for symptomatic leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:535-541.
13. deSouza NM, Williams AD. Uterine arterial embolization for leiomyomas: Perfusion and volume changes at MR imaging and relation to clinical outcome. Radiology. 2002;222:367-374.
14. Kitamura Y, Ascher S, Cooper C, et al. Imaging manifestations of complications associated with uterine artery embolization. RadioGraphics. 2005; 25(suppl 1):S119-S132.
15. Pelage JP, Guaou NG, Jha RC, et al. Uterine fibroid tumors: Long-term MR imaging outcome after embolization. Radiology. 2004;230:803-809.
16. Marret H, Alonso AM, Cottier JP, et al. Leiomyoma recurrence after uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:1395-1399.
17. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Van Deerlin V. Adenomyosis: Current concepts and imaging considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:437-441.
18. Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: Endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. RadioGraphics. 1999;19 Spec No:S147-S160.
19. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, et al. Adenomyosis: Diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166 (1 Pt 1):111-114.
20. Togashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I, et al. Enlarged uterus: Differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989; 171:531-534.
21. Pelage JP, Jacob D, Fazel A, et al. Midterm results of uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis: Initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234:948-953. Comment in: Radiology. 2005; 236:1111-1112; author reply 1112.
22. Kim MD, Kim S, Kim NK, et al. Long-term results of uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenology. 2007;188:176-181.
23. Manfredi R, Gui B, Maresca G, et al. Endometrial cancer: Magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:626-636.
24. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymphnode metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2491-2499. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1010.
25. Ascher SM, Johnson JC, Barnes WA, et al. MR imaging appearance of the uterus in post-menopausal women receiving tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer: Histologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;200:105-110.
26. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal obstruction, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944-955. Comment in: Fertil Steril. 1989;51:199-201.
27. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: Imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233:19-34.
28. Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76: 593-596.
29. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, et al. Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol. 1996;155:847-848.
30. Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1990;176:715-720.
31. Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, et al. Magnetic resonance evaluation of double uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:844-847.