In recent years, due to the development of standardized diagnostic protocols associated with an improvement in the associated technology, the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis using imaging is becoming a reality. In particular, transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance are today the two imaging techniques that can accurately identify the majority of the phenotypes of endometriosis. This review focuses not only on these most common imaging modalities but also on some additional radiological techniques that were proposed for rectosigmoid colon endometriosis, such as double-contrast barium enema, rectal endoscopic ultrasonography, multidetector computed tomography enema, computed tomography colonography and positron emission tomography–computed tomography with 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-estradiol.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background: The O-RADS system is a new proposal for establishing the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses using ultrasound. The objective of this study is to assess the agreement and diagnostic performance of O-RADS when using the IOTA lexicon or ADNEX model for assigning the O-RADS risk group. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All women diagnosed as having an adnexal mass underwent transvaginal/transabdominal ultrasound. Adnexal masses were classified according to the O-RADS classification, using the criterion of the IOTA lexicon and according to the risk of malignancy determined by the ADNEX model. The agreement between both methods for assigning the O-RADS group was estimated using weighted Kappa and the percentage of agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of both approaches were calculated. Results: 454 adnexal masses in 412 women were evaluated during the study period. There were 64 malignant masses. The agreement between the two approaches was moderate (Kappa: 0.47), and the percentage of agreement was 46%. Most disagreements occurred for the groups O-RADS 2 and 3 and for groups O-RADS 3 and 4. The sensitivity and specificity for O-RADS using the IOTA lexicon and O-RADS using the ADNEX model were 92.2% and 86.1%, and 85.9% and 87.4%, respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of O-RADS classification using the IOTA lexicon as opposed to the IOTA ADNEX model is similar. However, O-RADS group assignment varies significantly, depending on the use of the IOTA lexicon or the risk estimation using the ADNEX model. This fact might be clinically relevant and deserves further research.

Ultrasound technology with or without color Doppler allows a real-time evaluation of the entire female pelvis including gynecologic and non-gynecological organs, as well as their pathology. As ultrasound is an accurate tool for gynecological diagnosis and is less invasive and less expensive than other techniques, it should be the first imaging modality used in the evaluation of the female pelvis. We present a miscellany of non-gynecological pelvic images observed during the realization of gynecological ultrasound. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound is the first choice among diagnostic techniques for the study of the female pelvis, providing information about gynecological and extra-gynecological organs, allowing for an orientation toward the pathology of a specific organ or system as well as for additional tests to be performed that are necessary for definitive diagnosis.

No abstract