Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]852
• Clinical Article •
Multiparametric MRI, MR-HSG and clinical characteristics of uterine factor infertility
WANG Jie  DUAN Na  WANG Shaojuan  HU Xuyu  REN Shuai  YIN Yanyun  WANG Zhongqiu 

Cite this article as: WANG J, DUAN N, WANG S J, et al. Multiparametric MRI, MR-HSG and clinical characteristics of uterine factor infertility[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(3): 122-129. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.03.020.


[Abstract] Objective To investigate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) and clinical characteristics of uterine factor infertility (UFI) and to develop a model for predicting UFI.Materials and Methods The clinical characteristics, MRI and MR-HSG imaging data of 312 patients with UFI only were analyzed retrospectively. The pregnancy results were followed up after treatment and divided into the infertile group and the pregnant group. The differences were compared including clinical indexes (age, diet, menstrual cycle, etc), sex hormones, and uterine abnormalities (such as uterine fibroids, intrauterine adhesions, scarred uterus, adenomyosis, endometrial polyps, Nabothian cyst, etc) between the two groups. Risk factors for UFI were then identified through univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The enter method was performed to construct the clinical parameter model, the combination of clinical and MRI and MR-HSG parameter prediction models. The performance of the model was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC), and the AUCs were compared using the DeLong test.Results The differences in age, menstrual cycle irregularity, uterine fibroids, cesarean scar diverticulum, and intrauterine adhesions between the infertility group of 86 cases and pregnant group of 226 cases were statistically significant (all P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that age (OR=0.822, P<0.001)、multiple uterine fibroids (OR=0.540, P=0.002) and intrauterine adhesion (OR=0.367, P=0.036) were independent risk factors for UFI. The AUC for the combined model (age + multiple uterine fibroids + intrauterine adhesion) was 0.809, which was significantly higher than the age model (P<0.05). The combined model did not show a statistically significant difference compared to the age + intrauterine adhesion model and the age + multiple fibroids model (all P>0.05).Conclusions Age, multiple uterine fibroids, and intrauterine adhesion are identified as risk factors for UFI, and the combined model has clinical value in predicting pregnancy.
[Keywords] infertility；uterine fibroids；intrauterine adhesion；magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography；magnetic resonance imaging

WANG Jie1   DUAN Na1   WANG Shaojuan1   HU Xuyu1   REN Shuai1   YIN Yanyun2   WANG Zhongqiu1*  

1 Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210029, China

2 Department of Fertility Center, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210029, China

Corresponding author: WANG Z Q, E-mail: zhq2001us@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2023-11-10
Accepted  2024-02-05
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.03.020
Cite this article as: WANG J, DUAN N, WANG S J, et al. Multiparametric MRI, MR-HSG and clinical characteristics of uterine factor infertility[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(3): 122-129. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.03.020.

[1]
GURUNATH S, PANDIAN Z, ANDERSON R A, et al. Defining infertility: a systematic review of prevalence studies[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2011, 17(5): 575-588. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr015.
[2]
DUAN N, WANG S J, HU X Y, et al. The role of 3.0 T MR hysterosalpingography work? up in the diagnosis of female infertility[J]. Chin J Radiol, 2019, 53(8): 705-709. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2019.08.008.
[3]
WANG S J, DUAN N, HU X Y, et al. Characteristics of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical etiology of ovarian infertility[J]. Natl Med J China, 2021, 101(35): 2798-2803. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20210714-02749.
[4]
LIAO J, MA Q H, XU L Z. Etiology and management principles of fertility decline caused by non-ovarian factors[J]. J Pract Obstet Gynecol, 2021, 37(10): 731-734.
[5]
CARSON S A, KALLEN A N. Diagnosis and management of infertility: a review[J]. JAMA, 2021, 326(1): 65-76. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.4788.
[6]
MUNRO M G. Uterine polyps, adenomyosis, leiomyomas, and endometrial receptivity[J]. Fertil Steril, 2019, 111(4): 629-640. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.02.008.
[7]
WILDENSCHILD C, RIIS A H, EHRENSTEIN V, et al. Fecundability among Danish women with a history of miscarriage: a prospective cohort study[J/OL]. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(1): e023996 [2023-11-19]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35359387/. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023996.
[8]
SALLÉE C, MARGUERITTE F, MARQUET P, et al. Uterine factor infertility, a systematic review[J/OL]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(16): 4907 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36013146/. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164907.
[9]
GRIGOVICH M, KACHARIA V S, BHARWANI N, et al. Evaluating fallopian tube patency: what the radiologist needs to know[J]. Radiographics, 2021, 41(6): 1876-18961. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021210033.
[10]
CHEN L S, ZHU Z Q, LI J, et al. Hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography vs. magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography for diagnosing fallopian tubal patency: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2020, 125: 108891 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32088657/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108891.
[11]
DUAN N, CHEN X, YIN Y Y, et al. Comparison between magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography and conventional hysterosalpingography: direct visualization of the fallopian tubes using a novel MRI contrast agent mixture[J]. Acta Radiol, 2020, 61(7): 1001-1007. DOI: 10.1177/0284185119883712.
[12]
LI Y Z, QIU J, MA B, et al. The role of diagnostic magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of fallopian tubal occlusion of female infertility: a meta-analysis[J]. Clin Imaging, 2021, 72: 11-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.11.001.
[13]
UNTERWEGER M, GEYTER C D, FRÖHLICH J M, et al. Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; a new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility[J]. Hum Reprod, 2002, 17(12): 3138-3141. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.12.3138.
[14]
MATTOS L A, SAUER L J, BLASBALG R, et al. Hysterosalpingography using Magnetic Resonance Imaging for infertility patients[J]. JBRA Assist Reprod, 2021, 25(3): 403-411. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20210002.
[15]
VOLONDAT M, FONTAS E, DELOTTE J, et al. Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility-comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography: a randomised study[J]. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(2): 501-508. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5572-2.
[16]
DISHUCK C F, PERCHIK J D, PORTER K K, et al. Advanced imaging in female infertility[J/OL]. Curr Urol Rep, 2019, 20(11): 77 [2023-11-19]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31734736/. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-019-0942-0.
[17]
Radiation Intervention Professional Committee of China Maternal and Child Health Association. Technical specification of salpingography: consensus of experts in China (2022 edition)[J]. China Ind Econ, 2022, 38(2): 165-169. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2022020110.
[18]
PACE C, ARGIRÒ R, CASADEI L, et al. Comparison between X-ray-hysterosalpingography and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance- hysterosalpingography in the assessment of the tubal patency in the cause of female infertility[J]. Radiol Med, 2022, 127(12): 1373-1382. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01556-8.
[19]
SHABIR S, CHOH N A, NAZIR M, et al. Diagnostic role of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of female infertility[J/OL]. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med, 2022, 53(1): 248 [2023-11-19]. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s43055-022-00931-9. DOI: 10.1186/s43055-022-00931-9.
[20]
LIANG S J, CHEN Y H, WANG Q, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of infertility among 20-49year old women in Henan Province, China[J/OL]. Reprod Health, 2021, 18(1): 254 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34930324/. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-021-01298-2.
[21]
ZHANG L T, CAI H, LI W, et al. Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility: can use of ICSI turn the tide?[J/OL]. BMC Womens Health, 2022, 22(1): 480 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36443809/. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-02062-9.
[22]
TIAN T, CHEN L X, YANG R, et al. Prediction of fertilization disorders in the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a retrospective study of 106, 728 treatment cycles[J/OL]. Front Endocrinol, 2022, 13: 870708 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35518924/. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.870708.
[23]
LIN Y, WU R C, HUANG Y L, et al. Uterine fibroid-like tumors: spectrum of MR imaging findings and their differential diagnosis[J]. Abdom Radiol, 2022, 47(6): 2197-2208. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03431-6.
[24]
COUTINHO L M, ASSIS W A, SPAGNUOLO-SOUZA A, et al. Uterine fibroids and pregnancy: how do they affect each other?[J]. Reprod Sci, 2022, 29(8): 2145-2151. DOI: 10.1007/s43032-021-00656-6.
[25]
SOMIGLIANA E, RESCHINI M, BONANNI V, et al. Fibroids and natural fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2021, 43(1): 100-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.03.013.
[26]
BONANNI V, RESCHINI M, VECCHIA I L, et al. The impact of small and asymptomatic intramural and subserosal fibroids on female fertility: a case-control study[J/OL]. Hum Reprod Open, 2023, 2023(1): hoac056 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36579123/. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac056.
[27]
WANG X L, WANG G, HAN R, et al. Uterine fibroids increase the risk of preterm birth and other adverse birth events: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Transl Pediatr, 2022, 11(6): 978-986. DOI: 10.21037/tp-22-215.
[28]
KANG K, WANG A M, WU H R. MRI for diagnosing intrauterine adhesions[J/OL]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2023, 45(10): 102168 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37331696/. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.06.004.
[29]
HOOKER A B, DE LEEUW R A, EMANUEL M H, et al. The link between intrauterine adhesions and impaired reproductive performance: a systematic review of the literature[J/OL]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2022, 22(1): 837 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36376829/. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-05164-2.
[30]
FENG Y J, JIANG P P, ZHOU N, et al. Characteristics of endometrial fibrosis on MRI[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imag, 2021, 12(4): 35-38, 44. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.04.007.
[31]
HU Q, JIANG P P, FENG Y J, et al. Noninvasive assessment of endometrial fibrosis in patients with intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2021, 11(1): 12887 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145361/. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92383-w.
[32]
HU Q, JIANG P P, FENG Y J, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging for assessing endometrial fibrosis: a preliminary clinical study[J]. Abdom Radiol, 2022, 47(4): 1448-1456. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03413-8.
[33]
DONNEZ O. Cesarean scar defects: management of an iatrogenic pathology whose prevalence has dramatically increased[J]. Fertil Steril, 2020, 113(4): 704-716. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.037.
[34]
MORENO I, SIMON C. Relevance of assessing the uterine microbiota in infertility[J]. Fertil Steril, 2018, 110(3): 337-343. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.041.
[35]
STUPAK A, KONDRACKA A, FRONCZEK A, et al. Scar tissue after a cesarean section-the management of different complications in pregnant women[J/OL]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021, 18(22): 11998 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34831752/. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182211998.
[36]
DOMINGUEZ J A, PACHECO L A, MORATALLA E, et al. Diagnosis and management of isthmocele (Cesarean scar defect): a SWOT analysis[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2023, 62(3): 336-344. DOI: 10.1002/uog.26171.
[37]
VITALE S G, HAIMOVICH S, LAGANÀ A S, et al. Endometrial polyps. An evidence-based diagnosis and management guide[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2021, 260: 70-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.03.017.
[38]
MAHESHWARI A, PANDEY S, AMALRAJ RAJA E, et al. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer?[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2018, 24(1): 35-58. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmx031.
[39]
CARBONNEL M, PIRTEA P, ZIEGLER D D, et al. Uterine factors in recurrent pregnancy losses[J]. Fertil Steril, 2021, 115(3): 538-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.12.003.
[40]
BOSTEELS J, VAN WESSEL S, WEYERS S, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities[J/OL]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, 12(12): CD009461 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30521679/. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4.
[41]
HORTON J, STERRENBURG M, LANE S, et al. Reproductive, obstetric, and perinatal outcomes of women with adenomyosis and endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2019, 25(5): 592-632. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz012.
[42]
VERCELLINI P, VIGANÒ P, BANDINI V, et al. Association of endometriosis and adenomyosis with pregnancy and infertility[J]. Fertil Steril, 2023, 119(5): 727-740. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.018.
[43]
BENAGLIA L, CARDELLICCHIO L, LEONARDI M, et al. Asymptomatic adenomyosis and embryo implantation in IVF cycles[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2014, 29(5): 606-611. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.07.021.
[44]
KHAN K N, FUJISHITA A, MORI T. Pathogenesis of human adenomyosis: current understanding and its association with infertility[J/OL]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(14): 4057 [2023-09-15]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35887822/. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144057.
[45]
YOUNES G, TULANDI T. Effects of adenomyosis on invitro fertilization treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis[J]. Fertil Steril, 2017, 108(3): 483-490. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.025.

PREV The value of multi-parametric MRI radiomics model in predicting lymph node metastasis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
NEXT Predicting lymph-vascular space invasion in cervical cancer based on MR-T2WI with deep learning and radiomic features combined with clinical features
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn