Table 1 Overview of the studies on USE in diagnosing UF and UM
From: Advances in the clinical application of ultrasound elastography in uterine imaging
Year | Authors | Patient numbers and type of lesions | Type of elastography | Type of study | Diagnostic parameters | Diagnostic performance or research results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assessment of the normal uterus | ||||||
2019 | Manchanda et al. [58] | NM = 56 | SWE | Prospective cohort study | E mean | The E mean was 25.54 ± 8.56 (endometrium), 40.24 ± 8.59 (myometrium), and 18.90 ± 4.22 (cervix). There was no significant difference in E mean for women in different menstrual phases (p = .176) or in different age groups (p = .376) |
2015 | Soliman et al. [57] | NM = 32 | ARFI | Prospective observational study | Cs mean | The menopausal status did not have any significant influence on the Cs measurements. The Cs means were 2.05 ± 0.77 m/s (endometrium) while 2.82 ± 0.77 m/s(myometrium) |
Lesions of the uterus | ||||||
2022 | Pongpunprut et al. [33] | NM = 25, UF = 25, AM = 25 | SWE | Prospective cross-Sectional Study | Cs mean | The Cs differed between NM and AM (p = 0.019) with the cut-off point at 3.465 m/s and 80% sensitivity, 80% specificity, and AUC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.93) (p < 0.001). SWE could not differentiate AM from UF or UF from NM |
2021 | Görgülü et al. [34] | UF = 98, AM = 37 NM = 40 | SWE, SE and MRI ADC | Retrospectively case–control study | SR mean, SR max, ADC values, Cs mean, and Cs max | SE, SWE, and MRI ADC could be useful in differentiating UF and AM (p < 0.001 for all three), and none of these methods were statistically superior to each other in differentiating the UF from the AM (p < 0.001) |
2019 | Zhang et al. [49] | NM = 16, UF = 12, AM = 6 | SWE | Prospective case–control study | Cs mean | Cs mean in NM was 4.861.9 m/s, compared with 4.962.5 m/s in AM and 5.662.5 m/s in UF (p = 0.34). SWV for AM and UF did not differ significantly (p = 0.40) |
2018 | Bildaci et al. [29] | AM = 28, NM = 62 | vitro ARFI | Prospective case–control study | Cs mean | The Cs mean of AM (4.22 ± 1.62 m/s) showed a significant difference compared to that of NM (3.22 ± 0.90 m/s) (p < 0.01) |
2018 | Stoelinga et al. [30] | NM = 10, UF = 10, AM = 10 | SE | Prospective diagnostic study | Uterine volume for AM and fibroid volume for AF | The sensitivity of SE in the diagnosis of UF and AM was 82% and 91%, and the specificity was 95% and 97% with high inter-observer and inter-method agreement |
2018 | Liu et al. [32] | NM = 141, UF = 75, AM = 147 | SE | Prospective control study | SR mean, SR max, SR min | The stiffness of AM lesions was significantly higher than that of UF (p < 0.01) |
2016 | Frank et al. [31] | NM = 143, UF = 41, AM = 22 | SE | Prospective case–control study | SR max: stored as the “lesion index” | “Lesion indices” of UF, AM, and NM were 2.65, 0.44, and 1.19, respectively, and were significantly different between them (p < 0.001) |
Assessment of treatment | ||||||
2020 | Samanci et al. [36] | UF = 33 | SWE | Prospective case–control study | Cs mean | The post-UAE Cs mean of UF (3.34 ± 3.9 kPa) was significantly lower than that of the pre-UAE (17.16 ± 4.8 kPa) (p < 0.001). There was excellent agreement between the 2 blinded observers in Cs mean |
2019 | Xie et al. [35] | AM = 45 | SE | Prospective case–control study | scoring system | In 12 cases who were pregnancy during the follow-up, the mean elasticity score was significantly higher for the uterine after therapy than before (3.6 ± 0.3 vs 2.3 ± 0.5, p = 0.004) |