Benagiano G, Habiba M, Brosens I. The pathophysiology of uterine adenomyosis: an update. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):572–9.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Seidman JD, Kjerulff KH. Pathologic findings from the Maryland Women’s Health Study: practice patterns in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology: Official Journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. 1996;15(3):217–21.

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Chopra S, Lev-Toaff AS, Ors F, Bergin D. Adenomyosis: common and uncommon manifestations on sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine: Official Journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2006;25(5):617–27; quiz 29.

Chapron C, Vannuccini S, Santulli P, Abrão MS, Carmona F, Fraser IS, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis: an integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(3):392–411.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Özkan ZS, Kumbak B, Cilgin H, Simsek M, Turk BA. Coexistence of adenomyosis in women operated for benign gynecological diseases. Gynecological Endocrinology: the Official Journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology. 2012;28(3):212–5.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pontis A, D’Alterio MN, Pirarba S, de Angelis C, Tinelli R, Angioni S. Adenomyosis: a systematic review of medical treatment. Gynecological Endocrinology: the Official Journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology. 2016;32(9):696–700.

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Devlieger R, D’Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(2):139–47.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Tamura H, Kishi H, Kitade M, Asai-Sato M, Tanaka A, Murakami T, et al. Complications and outcomes of pregnant women with adenomyosis in Japan. Reproductive Medicine and Biology. 2017;16(4):330–6.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Li X, Liu X, Guo SW. Clinical profiles of 710 premenopausal women with adenomyosis who underwent hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(2):485–94.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Loring M, Chen TY, Isaacson KB. A systematic review of adenomyosis: it is time to reassess what we thought we knew about the disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(3):644–55.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Van den Bosch T, de Bruijn AM, de Leeuw RA, Dueholm M, Exacoustos C, Valentin L, et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;53(5):576–82.

Article  Google Scholar 

Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, Valentin L, Rasmussen CK, Votino A, 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 in Obstetrics & Gynecology: the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;46(3):284–98.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bulun SE, Yildiz S, Adli M, Wei JJ. Adenomyosis pathogenesis: insights from next-generation sequencing. Hum Reprod Update. 2021;27(6):1086–97.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Vannuccini S, Petraglia F. Recent advances in understanding and managing adenomyosis. F1000Research. 2019;8.

Piccioni MG, Rosato E, Muzii L, Perniola G, Porpora MG. Sonographic and clinical features of adenomyosis in women in “early” (18–35) and “advanced” (>35) reproductive ages. Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021;73(3):354–61.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Tellum T, Nygaard S, Lieng M. Noninvasive diagnosis of adenomyosis: a structured review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(2):408-18.e3.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(11):1374–84.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sørensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(3):588–94.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199(1):151–8.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

•• Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertility and Sterility. 2018;109(3):389–97. Excellent overview of use of TVUS and MRI for the diagnosis of adenomyosis and a proposed classification imaging system.

Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2001;16(11):2427–33.

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(6):505–12.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F, Laursen H. Reproducibility of evaluation of the uterus by transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, hysteroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(1):195–200.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Vinci V, Saldari M, Sergi ME, Bernardo S, Rizzo G, Porpora MG, et al. MRI, US or real-time virtual sonography in the evaluation of adenomyosis? Radiol Med (Torino). 2017;122(5):361–8.

Article  Google Scholar 

Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, Alves J, Setúbal A, Guerra A. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(6):549–56.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Kido A, Togashi K. Uterine anatomy and function on cine magnetic resonance imaging. Reproductive Medicine and Biology. 2016;15(4):191–9.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Zand KR, Reinhold C, Haider MA, Nakai A, Rohoman L, Maheshwari S. Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the pelvis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: JMRI. 2007;26(3):480–97.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Nakai A, Togashi K, Kosaka K, Kido A, Kataoka M, Koyama T, et al. Do anticholinergic agents suppress uterine peristalsis and sporadic myometrial contractions at cine MR imaging? Radiology. 2008;246(2):489–96.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Kataoka M, Kido A, Koyama T, Isoda H, Umeoka S, Tamai K, et al. MRI of the female pelvis at 3T compared to 1.5T: evaluation on high-resolution T2-weighted and HASTE images. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: JMRI. 2007;25(3):527–34.

Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: usual and unusual imaging manifestations, pitfalls, and problem-solving MR imaging techniques. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2011;31(1):99–115.

O’Shea A, Figueiredo G, Lee SI. Imaging diagnosis of adenomyosis. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine. 2020;38(2–03):119–28.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Proscia N, Jaffe TA, Neville AM, Wang CL, Dale BM, Merkle EM. MRI of the pelvis in women: 3D versus 2D T2-weighted technique. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):254–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bazot M, Daraï E, Clément de Givry S, Boudghène F, Uzan S, Le Blanche AF. Fast breath-hold T2-weighted MR imaging reduces interobserver variability in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003;180(5):1291–6.

Hricak H, Finck S, Honda G, Göranson H. MR imaging in the evaluation of benign uterine masses: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced T1-weighted images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158(5):1043–50.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Kishi Y, Suginami H, Kuramori R, Yabuta M, Suginami R, Taniguchi F. Four subtypes of adenomyosis assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and their specification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(2):114.e1-7.

Article  Google Scholar 

• Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J, Toullalan O, Chevallier A, Bouaziz J, et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology. 2011;196(5):1206–13. Overview of MRI imaging features of adenomyosis with emphysis on JZ.

Antero MF, Ayhan A, Segars J, Shih IM. Pathology and pathogenesis of adenomyosis. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine. 2020;38(2–03):108–18.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Collins BG, Ankola A, Gola S, McGillen KL. Transvaginal US of endometriosis: looking beyond the endometrioma with a dedicated protocol. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2019;39(5):1549–68.

Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 1999;19 Spec No:S147–60.

Tellum T, Matic GV, Dormagen JB, Nygaard S, Viktil E, Qvigstad E, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis with MRI: a prospective study revisiting the junctional zone thickness cutoff of 12 mm as a diagnostic marker. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(12):6971–81.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

•• Rees CO, Nederend J, Mischi M, van Vliet H, Schoot BC. Objective measures of adenomyosis on MRI and their diagnostic accuracy—a systematic review & meta-analysis. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2021;100(8):1377–91. Recent meta-analysis and systematic review of different MRI diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis

Scoutt LM, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, McCauley TR, McCarthy SM. Junctional zone of the uterus: correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology. 1991;179(2):403–7.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Bartoli JM, Moulin G, Delannoy L, Chagnaud C, Kasbarian M. The normal uterus on magnetic resonance imaging and variations associated with the hormonal state. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy: SRA. 1991;13(3):213–20.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Masui T, Katayama M, Kobayashi S, Nakayama S, Nozaki A, Kabasawa H, et al. Changes in myometrial and junctional zone thickness and signal intensity: demonstration with kinematic T2-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2001;221(1):75–85.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Tamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T. MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2005;25(1):21–40.

Gordts S, Brosens JJ, Fusi L, Benagiano G, Brosens I. Uterine adenomyosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(2):244–8.

PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Peyron N, Jacquemier E, Charlot M, Devouassoux M, Raudrant D, Golfier F, et al. Accessory cavitated uterine mass: MRI features and surgical correlations of a rare but under-recognised entity. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1144–52.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Troiano RN, Flynn SD, McCarthy S. Cystic adenomyosis of the uterus: MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: JMRI. 1998;8(6):1198–202.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Togashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I, Itoh H, Nishimura K, Fujisawa I, et al. Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171(2):531–4.

CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Donnez J, Spada F, Squifflet J, Nisolle M. Bladder endometriosis must be considered as bladder adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(6):1175–81.