It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION
Could the anogenital distance (AGD) as assessed by MRI (MRI-AGD) be a diagnostic tool for endometriosis?
SUMMARY ANSWER
A short MRI-AGD is a strong diagnostic marker of endometriosis.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
A short clinically assessed AGD (C-AGD) is associated with the presence of endometriosis.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
This study is a re-analysis of previously published data from a case–control study.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Women undergoing pelvic surgery from January 2018 to June 2019 and who had a preoperative pelvic MRI were included. C-AGD was measured at the beginning of the surgery by a different operator who was unaware of the endometriosis status. MRI-AGD was measured retrospectively by a senior radiologist who was blinded to the final diagnosis. Two measurements were made: from the posterior wall of the clitoris to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AC), and from the posterior wall of the vagina to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AF).
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
The study compared MRI-AGD of 67 women with endometriosis to 31 without endometriosis (controls). Average MRI-AGD-AF measurements were 13.3 mm (±3.9) and 21.2 mm (±5.4) in the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10−5). Average MRI-AGD-AC measurements were 40.4 mm (±7.3) and 51.1 mm (±8.6) for the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10−5). There was no difference of MRI-AGD in women with and without endometrioma (P = 0.21), or digestive involvement (P = 0.26). Moreover, MRI-AGD values were independent of the revised score of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Enzian score. The diagnosis of endometriosis was negatively associated with both the MRI-AGD-AF (β = −7.79, 95% CI (−9.88; −5.71), P < 0.001) and MRI-AGD-AC (β = −9.51 mm, 95% CI (−12.7; 6.24), P < 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Age (β = +0.31 mm, 95% CI (0.09; 0.53), P = 0.006) and BMI (β = +0.44 mm, 95% CI (0.17; 0.72), P = 0.001) were positively associated with the MRI-AGD-AC measurements in multivariable analysis. MRI-AGD-AF had an AUC of 0.869 (95% CI (0.79; 0.95)) and outperformed C-AGD. Using an optimal cut-off of 20 mm for MRI-AGD-AF, a sensitivity of 97.01% and a specificity of 70.97% were noted.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
This was a retrospective analysis and no adolescents had been included.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
This study is consistent with previous works associating a short C-AGD with endometriosis and the absence of correlation with the disease phenotype. MRI-AGD is more accurate than C-AGD in this setting and could be evaluated in the MRI examination of patients with suspected endometriosis.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
N/A.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
The protocol was approved by the ‘Groupe Nantais d’Ethique dans le Domaine de la Santé’ and registered under reference 02651077.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Paris, France
2 Department of Radiology, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Paris, France
3 Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, CIC FEA, Hôpital Mère Enfant, CHU Hôtel Dieu, Nantes, France
4 Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Paris, France; UMRS 938, Centre de recherche Saint Antoine, Faculté de Médecine Sorbonne Université, Paris, France; INSERM UMR_S_707, ‘Epidemiology, Information Systems, Modeling’, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France
5 Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Paris, France; UMRS 938, Centre de recherche Saint Antoine, Faculté de Médecine Sorbonne Université, Paris, France; INSERM UMR_S_707, ‘Epidemiology, Information Systems, Modeling’, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France; Groupe de recherche clinique (GRC-6), Centre Expert En Endométriose (C3E), Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris, hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France