A.M. IPTYSHEV, V.B. TSKHAY

 Krasnoyarsk State Medical University named after Prof. V.F. Voyno-Yasenetskiy, Krasnoyarsk

Contact details:

Iptyshev A.M. — Assistant Lecturer of the Department of Perinatology, Obstetrics and Gynecology

Address: 1 Partizan Zheleznyak St., 660022 Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation, tel.: +7-923-369-88-24, e-mail: alexandriptishev@gmail.com

Adenomyosis (AM) is a complex and insufficiently studied gynecological disease that significantly impairs the quality of life in women of reproductive age. This review examines modern diagnostic methods for AM, including ultrasound scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), elastography, and immunohistochemical marker analysis.

The purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of current diagnostic techniques for AM. We analyzed publications from the PubMed and eLIBRARY databases over the past five years. Articles were selected by keywords such as «adenomyosis», «diagnosis», «ultrasound diagnosis», «magnetic resonance imaging», «elastography», and «immunohistochemical markers».

Conclusion. Modern imaging techniques, such as transvaginal sonography, elastography, and MRI, are highly informative diagnostic tools for AM. However, the results of visual diagnostics do not always correlate with clinical symptoms. This highlights the need for supplementary diagnostic approaches, particularly the assessment of immunohistochemical markers.

Key words: adenomyosis, diagnosis, ultrasound diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging, elastography, immunohistochemical markers.

REFERENCES

1. Dzhamalutdinova K.M., Kozachenko I.F., Gus A.I., Adamyan L.V. Modern aspects of the pathogenesis and diagnosis of adenomyosis. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya, 2018, no. 1, pp. 29–34 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/aig.2018.1.29-34
2. Bourdon M., Oliveira J., Marcellin L. et al. Adenomyosis of the inner and outer myometrium are associated with different clinical profiles. Hum. Reprod, 2021, vol. 36 (2), pp. 349–357. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa307
3. Donnez J., Stratopoulou C.A., Dolmans M.M. Endometriosis and adenomyosis: similarities and differences. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol, 2024, vol. 92. 102432. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102432
4. Upson K., Missmer S.A. Epidemiology of adenomyosis. Semin Reprod. Med., 2020, vol. 38, pp. 89–107. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718920
5. Moawad G., Kheil M.H., Ayoubi J.M. et al. Adenomyosis and infertility. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet, 2022, vol. 39 (5), pp. 1027–1031. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02476-2
6. Taylor M.A., Croudace T.J., Muir F.E. et al. Women’s experiences of living with adenomyosis and perceptions of the diagnostic journey: a scoping review. BMJ Open., 2025, vol. 15, p. e087122. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087122
7. Namazova M.R., Orlova E.S., Artemova O.I. Comparison of pathogenetic aspects of the development of gynecological pathology (literature review). Sibirskoye meditsinskoye obozreniye, 2023, no. 4, pp. 5–14 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20333/25000136-2023-4-5-14
8. Davydov A.I., Pashkov V.M., Shakhlamova M.N. Adenomyosis: a new look at an old problem. Voprosy ginekologii, akusherstva i perinatologii, 2016, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 59–66 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20953/1726-1678-2016-2-59-66
9. Alcázar J.L., Vara J., Usandizaga C. et al. Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyosis: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet, 2023, vol. 161 (2), pp. 397–405. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14609
10. Ferrero S., Scala C., Vellone V.G. et al. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided biopsy of adenomyosis. Ann. Transl. Med, 2019, vol. 7 (Suppl 8), p. S341. DOI: 10.21037/atm.2019.09.94
11. Harmsen M.J., Trommelen L.M., de Leeuw R.A. et al. Uterine junctional zone and adenomyosis: comparison of MRI, transvaginal ultrasound and histology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol, 2023, vol. 62 (1), pp. 42–60. DOI: 10.1002/uog.26117
12. O’Shea A., Figueiredo G., Lee S.I. Imaging diagnosis of adenomyosis. Semin Reprod. Med, 2020, vol. 38, pp. 119–128. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719017
13. Van den Bosch T., Dueholm M., Leone F.P.G. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol, 2015, vol. 46 (3), pp. 284–298. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14806
14. Harmsen M.J., van den Bosch T., de Leeuw R.A. et al. Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol, 2022, vol. 60 (1), pp. 118–131. DOI: 10.1002/uog.24786
15. Kobayashi H., Imanaka S. Understanding ultrasound features that predict symptom severity in patients with adenomyosis: a systematic review. Reprod. Sci, 2024, vol. 31 (2), pp. 320–331. DOI: 10.1007/s43032-023-01318-5
16. Di Donato N., Bertoldo V., Montanari G. et al. A simple sonographic sign associated to the presence of adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol, 2015, vol. 46 (1), pp. 126–127. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14750
17. Xholli A., Scovazzi U., Londero A.P. et al. Angle of uterine flexion and adenomyosis. J. Clin. Med, 2022, vol. 11 (11), p. 3214. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11113214
18. Gracia M., de Guirior C., Valdés-Bangoet M. et al. Adenomyosis is an independent risk factor for complications in deep endometriosis laparoscopic surgery. Sci. Rep., 2022, vol. 12 (1), p. 7086. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11179-8
19. Van den Bosch T., de Bruijn A.M., de Leeuw R.A. et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol, 2019, vol. 53 (5), pp. 576–582. DOI: 10.1002/uog.19096
20. Adamyan L.V., Sokolov A.D., Avetisyan D.S., Shapovalenko R.A. Modern methods for diagnosing adenomyosis: a systematic review. Problemy reproduktsii, 2023, vol. 29 (3), pp. 81–90. DOI: 10.17116/repro20232903181
21. Guo S.W., Benagiano G., Bazot M. In search of an imaging classification of adenomyosis: a role for elastography? J. Clin. Med, 2022, vol. 12 (1), p. 287. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010287
22. Shiina T., Nightingale K.R., Palmeri M.L. et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 1: basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med. Biol, 2015, vol. 41 (5), pp. 1126–1147. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.009
23. Liu X., Ding D., Ren Y. et al. Transvaginal elastosonography as an imaging technique for diagnosing adenomyosis. Reprod. Sci, 2018, vol. 25 (4), pp. 498–514. DOI: 10.1177/1933719117750752
24. Lee W.L., Liu C.H., Cheng M. et al. Focus on the primary prevention of intrauterine adhesions: current concept and vision. Int. J. Mol. Sci, 2021, vol. 22 (10), p. 5175. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22105175
25. Cui X.W., Li K.N., Yi A.J. et al. Ultrasound elastography. Endosc. Ultrasound., 2022, vol. 11 (4), pp. 252–274. DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-21-00151
26. Ren Q., Dong X., Yuan M. et al. Application of elastography to diagnose adenomyosis and evaluate the degree of dysmenorrhea: a prospective observational study. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol, 2023, vol. 21 (1), pp. 98. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-023-01145-y
27. Celli V., Dolciami M., Ninkova R. et al. MRI and adenomyosis: what can radiologists evaluate? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2022, vol. 19 (10), p. 5840. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19105840
28. Tang Y., Jiang Z.J., Wen M.B. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-based classifications for symptom of adenomyosis. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest, 2024, vol. 89 (5), pp. 402–412. DOI: 10.1159/000535802
29. Chung Y.J., Rha S.E., Kim M.R., Shin Y.R. Correlation between MRI features of adenomyosis and clinical presentation. Diagnostics. 2023;13(17):2749. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13172749
30. Han X.T., Guo H.Y., Wang F., et al. Analysis of the relationship between MRI imaging characteristics and clinical symptoms and therapeutic efficacy in adenomyosis patients. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi, 2023, vol. 58 (5), pp. 343–350. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20221130-00727
31. Agostinho L., Cruz R., Osorio F. et al. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging, 2017, vol. 8 (6), pp. 549–556. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-017-0576-z
32. Bazot M., Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril, 2018, vol. 109 (3), pp. 389–397. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.024
33. Kobayashi H., Matsubara S. A classification proposal for adenomyosis based on magnetic resonance imaging. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest, 2020, vol. 85 (2), pp. 118–126. DOI: 10.1159/000505690
34. Tellum T., Nygaard S., Lieng M. Noninvasive diagnosis adenomyosis: a structured review and meta-analysis diagnostic accuracy in imaging. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol., 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 408–418. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.001
35. Liu L., Li W., Leonardi M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis and review of sonographic diagnostic criteria. J. Ultrasound. Med, 2021, vol. 40 (11), pp. 2289–2306. DOI: 10.1002/jum.15635
36. Istrate-Ofiţeru A.M., Pirici D., Niculescu M. Clinical, morphological and immunohistochemical survey in different types of endometrioses. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol., 2018, vol. 59 (4), pp. 1133–1153. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25031789
37. La Torre F., Hurni Y., Farsi E. et al. Adenomyosis associated with endometrial cancer: possible correlation with pathological, immunohistochemical and molecular characteristics. Gynecol. Oncol, 2025, vol. 195, pp. 45–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2025.02.017
38. Samartzis N., Kalaitzopoulos D.R., Noske A. et al. The immunohistochemical expression of GPER and classical sex hormone receptors differs in adenomyosis and eutopic endometrium. J. Reprod. Immunol, 2023, vol. 156. 103795. DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2023.103795
39. Wang X., Cai W., Liang T. et al. The matrix stiffness is increased in the eutopic endometrium of adenomyosis patients: a study based on atomic force microscopy and histochemistry. Eur. J. Histochem, 2024, vol. 68 (4), p. 4131. DOI: 10.4081/ejh.2024.4131
40. Zhang H., Chaoming L., Wenyan L. et al. Research advances in adenomyosis-related signaling pathways and promising targets. Biomolecules, 2024, vol. 14 (11), p. 1402. DOI: 10.3390/biom14111402
41. Zhang J., Shi L., Duan J. et al. Proteomic detection of COX-2 pathway-related factors in patients with adenomyosis. Peer J, 2024, vol. 12, p. e16784. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16784
42. Liang S., Shi L., Duan J. et al. Celecoxib reduces inflammation and angiogenesis in mice with adenomyosis. Am. J. Transl. Res, 2021, vol. 13 (4), p. 2858.
43. Shcherbina N., Chekhunova A. Role of macrophages in the immunopathogenesis of adenomyosis. EUREKA Health Sci, 2022, vol. 4, pp. 50–56. DOI: 10.21303/2504-5679.2022.002644
44. Shevchenko A.V., Prokofiev V.F., Konenkov V. et al. Features of matrix metalloproteinases MMP2, MMP3, and MMP9 of regulatory-region polymorphism in patients with uterine fibroids. Cell. Tissue Biol, 2023, vol. 17 (6), pp. 699–705. DOI: 10.1134/S1990519X23060135
45. Peng Y., Jin Z., Liu H. et al. Impaired decidualization of human endometrial stromal cells from women with adenomyosis. Biol. Reprod, 2021, vol. 104 (5), pp. 1034–1044. DOI: 10.1093/biolre/ioab017
46. Xu X., Cai X., Liu X. et al. Possible involvement of neuropeptide and neurotransmitter receptors in adenomyosis. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol, 2021, vol. 19, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-021-00711-6