AC Search
Variant: 1   Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler pelvis Usually Appropriate O
US pelvis transabdominal Usually Appropriate O
US pelvis transvaginal Usually Appropriate O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT pelvis with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2   Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler pelvis Usually Appropriate O
US pelvis transabdominal Usually Appropriate O
US pelvis transvaginal Usually Appropriate O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT pelvis with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3   Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler pelvis Usually Appropriate O
US pelvis transabdominal Usually Appropriate O
US pelvis transvaginal Usually Appropriate O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Panel Members
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

  • There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

OR

  • There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
A. CT Pelvis
Variant 1: Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Pelvis
Variant 1: Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
C. US Pelvis Transabdominal
Variant 1: Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
D. US Pelvis Transvaginal
Variant 1: Clinically suspected fibroids. Initial imaging.
E. US Duplex Doppler Pelvis
Variant 2: Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
Variant 2: Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
A. CT Pelvis
Variant 2: Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Pelvis
Variant 2: Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
C. US Pelvis Transabdominal
Variant 2: Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
D. US Pelvis Transvaginal
Variant 2: Known fibroids. Treatment planning. Initial imaging.
E. US Duplex Doppler Pelvis
Variant 3: Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
Variant 3: Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
A. CT Pelvis
Variant 3: Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
B. MRI Pelvis
Variant 3: Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
C. US Pelvis Transabdominal
Variant 3: Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
D. US Pelvis Transvaginal
Variant 3: Known fibroids. Surveillance or posttreatment imaging.
E. US Duplex Doppler Pelvis
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Goodwin SC, Spies JB. Uterine fibroid embolization. N Engl J Med 2009;361:690-7.
2. Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:100-7.
3. Stewart EA. Clinical practice. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1646-55.
4. Walker CL, Stewart EA. Uterine fibroids: the elephant in the room. Science 2005;308:1589-92.
5. Alexander AL, Strohl AE, Rieder S, Holl J, Barber EL. Examining Disparities in Route of Surgery and Postoperative Complications in Black Race and Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:6-12.
6. Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Jacoby VL, Myers ER. Disparities in Fibroid Incidence, Prognosis, and Management. [Review]. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 44(1):81-94, 2017 Mar.
7. Cardozo ER, Clark AD, Banks NK, Henne MB, Stegmann BJ, Segars JH. The estimated annual cost of uterine leiomyomata in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:211 e1-9.
8. Manyonda I, Belli AM, Lumsden MA, et al. Uterine-Artery Embolization or Myomectomy for Uterine Fibroids. N Engl J Med. 383(5):440-451, 2020 07 30.
9. Lee C, Salim R, Ofili-Yebovi D, Yazbek J, Davies A, Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of the measurement of submucous fibroid protrusion into the uterine cavity using three-dimensional saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:837-41.
10. Salim R, Lee C, Davies A, Jolaoso B, Ofuasia E, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of three-dimensional saline infusion sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the classification of submucous fibroids. Hum Reprod 2005;20:253-7.
11. Sabry ASA, Fadl SA, Szmigielski W, et al. Diagnostic value of three-dimensional saline infusion sonohysterography in the evaluation of the uterus and uterine cavity lesions. Pol J Radiol 2018;83:e482-e90.
12. Davis PC, O'Neill MJ, Yoder IC, Lee SI, Mueller PR. Sonohysterographic findings of endometrial and subendometrial conditions. Radiographics 2002;22:803-16.
13. Ong CL. The current status of three-dimensional ultrasonography in gynaecology. Ultrasonography 2016;35:13-24.
14. Grigore M, Pristavu A, Iordache F, Gafitanu D, Ursulescu C. Comparative Study of Hysteroscopy and 3D Ultrasound for Diagnosing Uterine Cavity Abnormalities. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 120(4):866-73, 2016 Oct-Dec.
15. Keizer AL, Nieuwenhuis LL, Twisk JWR, Huirne JAF, Hehenkamp WJK, Brolmann HAM. Role of 3-Dimensional Sonography in the Assessment of Submucous Fibroids: A Pilot Study. J Ultrasound Med. 37(1):191-199, 2018 Jan.
16. Frank ML, Schafer SD, Mollers M, et al. Importance of Transvaginal Elastography in the Diagnosis of Uterine Fibroids and Adenomyosis. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 37(4):373-8, 2016 Aug.
17. Zhang M, Wasnik AP, Masch WR, et al. Transvaginal Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography for the Evaluation of Benign Uterine Pathologies: A Prospective Pilot Study. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 38(1):149-155, 2019 Jan.J Ultrasound Med. 38(1):149-155, 2019 Jan.
18. Stoelinga B, Hehenkamp WJK, Nieuwenhuis LL, et al. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Sonoelastography for the Assessment of Fibroids and Adenomyosis, with Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Reference Standard. Ultrasound Med Biol. 44(8):1654-1663, 2018 08.
19. Stoelinga B, Hehenkamp WJ, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. Real-time elastography for assessment of uterine disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 43(2):218-26, 2014 Feb.
20. Lakhman Y, Veeraraghavan H, Chaim J, et al. Differentiation of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma from Atypical Leiomyoma: Diagnostic Accuracy of Qualitative MR Imaging Features and Feasibility of Texture Analysis. European Radiology. 27(7):2903-2915, 2017 Jul.
21. Hossain MZ, Rahman MM, Ullah MM, et al. A Comparative Study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transabdominal Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis and Evaluation of Uterine Fibroids. Mymensingh Medical Journal: MMJ. 26(4):821-827, 2017 Oct.Mymensingh Med J. 26(4):821-827, 2017 Oct.
22. Battista C, Capriglione S, Guzzo F, et al. The challenge of preoperative identification of uterine myomas: Is ultrasound trustworthy? A prospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 293(6):1235-41, 2016 06.
23. Malartic C, Morel O, Rivain AL, et al. Evaluation of symptomatic uterine fibroids in candidates for uterine artery embolization: comparison between ultrasonographic and MR imaging findings in 68 consecutive patients. Clin Imaging. 37(1):83-90, 2013 Jan-Feb.
24. Rajan DK, Margau R, Kroll RR, et al. Clinical utility of ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for deciding to proceed with uterine artery embolization for presumed symptomatic fibroids. Clin Radiol. 66(1):57-62, 2011 Jan.
25. Kirby JM, Burrows D, Haider E, Maizlin Z, Midia M. Utility of MRI before and after uterine fibroid embolization: why to do it and what to look for. [Review]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 34(4):705-16, 2011 Aug.
26. Kubik-Huch RA, Weston M, Nougaret S, et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Guidelines: MR Imaging of Leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 28(8):3125-3137, 2018 Aug.
27. American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on Contrast Media.  Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Contrast-Manual.
28. Ueda H, Togashi K, Konishi I, et al. Unusual appearances of uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging findings and their histopathologic backgrounds. Radiographics 1999;19 Spec No:S131-45.
29. Arleo EK, Schwartz PE, Hui P, McCarthy S. Review of Leiomyoma Variants. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 205(4):912-21, 2015 Oct.
30. Bolan C, Caserta MP. MR imaging of atypical fibroids. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 41(12):2332-2349, 2016 12.
31. DeMulder D, Ascher SM. Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Can MRI Differentiate Leiomyosarcoma From Benign Leiomyoma Before Treatment?. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 211(6):1405-1415, 2018 12.
32. Barral M, Place V, Dautry R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging features of uterine sarcoma and mimickers. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 42(6):1762-1772, 2017 06.
33. Gaetke-Udager K, McLean K, Sciallis AP, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound, Contrast-enhanced CT, and Conventional MRI for Differentiating Leiomyoma From Leiomyosarcoma. Acad Radiol. 23(10):1290-7, 2016 10.
34. Abdel Wahab C, Jannot AS, Bonaffini PA, et al. Diagnostic Algorithm to Differentiate Benign Atypical Leiomyomas from Malignant Uterine Sarcomas with Diffusion-weighted MRI. Radiology 2020;297:E347.
35. Sun S, Bonaffini PA, Nougaret S, et al. How to differentiate uterine leiomyosarcoma from leiomyoma with imaging. [Review]. Diagn Interv Imaging. 100(10):619-634, 2019 Oct.
36. Rio G, Lima M, Gil R, Horta M, Cunha TM. T2 hyperintense myometrial tumors: can MRI features differentiate leiomyomas from leiomyosarcomas?. Abdom Radiol. 44(10):3388-3397, 2019 10.
37. Tong A, Kang SK, Huang C, Huang K, Slevin A, Hindman N. MRI screening for uterine leiomyosarcoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:e282-e94.
38. Valdes-Devesa V, Jimenez MDM, Sanz-Rosa D, Espada Vaquero M, Alvarez Moreno E, Sainz de la Cuesta Abbad R. Preoperative diagnosis of atypical pelvic leiomyoma and sarcoma: the potential role of diffusion-weighted imaging. J Obstet Gynaecol. 39(1):98-104, 2019 Jan.
39. Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C, et al. How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 23(8):2306-14, 2013 Aug.
40. Lin G, Yang LY, Huang YT, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI in the differentiation between uterine leiomyosarcoma / smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential and benign leiomyoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 43(2):333-42, 2016 Feb.
41. Siddiqui N, Nikolaidis P, Hammond N, Miller FH. Uterine artery embolization: pre- and post-procedural evaluation using magnetic resonance imaging. [Review]. Abdom Imaging. 38(5):1161-77, 2013 Oct.
42. Yang Q, Zhang LH, Su J, Liu J. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of uterine adenomyosis and leiomyoma. Eur J Radiol. 79(2):e47-51, 2011 Aug.
43. De La Cruz MS, Buchanan EM. Uterine Fibroids: Diagnosis and Treatment. [Review]. Am Fam Physician. 95(2):100-107, 2017 Jan 15.
44. Testa AC, Di Legge A, Bonatti M, Manfredi R, Scambia G. Imaging techniques for evaluation of uterine myomas. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 34:37-53, 2016 Jul.
45. Vilos GA, Allaire C, Laberge PY, Leyland N, Special C. The management of uterine leiomyomas. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37:157-78.
46. Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP, 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. 46(3):284-98, 2015 Sep.
47. Robbins JB, Sadowski EA, Maturen KE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S336-S45.
48. Cicinelli E, Romano F, Anastasio PS, Blasi N, Parisi C, Galantino P. Transabdominal sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of submucous myomas. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:42-7.
49. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis, mapping, and measurement of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:409-15.
50. Sharma K, Bora MK, Venkatesh BP, et al. Role of 3D Ultrasound and Doppler in Differentiating Clinically Suspected Cases of Leiomyoma and Adenomyosis of Uterus. J Clin Diagn Res. 9(4):QC08-12, 2015 Apr.
51. Bittencourt CA, Dos Santos Simoes R, Bernardo WM, et al. Accuracy of saline contrast sonohysterography in detection of endometrial polyps and submucosal leiomyomas in women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 50(1):32-39, 2017 Jul.
52. Idowu BM, Ibitoye BO. Doppler sonography of perifibroid and intrafibroid arteries of uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2018;61:395-403.
53. Kim SH, Sim JS, Seong CK. Interface vessels on color/power Doppler US and MRI: a clue to differentiate subserosal uterine myomas from extrauterine tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:36-42.
54. Madan R. The bridging vascular sign. Radiology 2006;238:371-2.
55. Kurjak A, Kupesic-Urek S, Miric D. The assessment of benign uterine tumor vascularization by transvaginal color Doppler. Ultrasound Med Biol 1992;18:645-9.
56. Sladkevicius P, Valentin L, Marsal K. Transvaginal Doppler examination of uteri with myomas. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24:135-40.
57. Kabil Kucur S, Temizkan O, Atis A, et al. Role of endometrial power Doppler ultrasound using the international endometrial tumor analysis group classification in predicting intrauterine pathology. Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 288(3):649-54, 2013 Sep.
58. Timmerman D, Verguts J, Konstantinovic ML, et al. The pedicle artery sign based on sonography with color Doppler imaging can replace second-stage tests in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22(2):166-171.
59. Omary RA, Vasireddy S, Chrisman HB, et al. The effect of pelvic MR imaging on the diagnosis and treatment of women with presumed symptomatic uterine fibroids. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13:1149-53.
60. Spielmann AL, Keogh C, Forster BB, Martin ML, Machan LS. Comparison of MRI and sonography in the preliminary evaluation for fibroid embolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:1499-504.
61. Franconeri A, Fang J, Carney B, et al. Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning. Eur Radiol. 28(7):3009-3017, 2018 Jul.
62. Chung YJ, Kang SY, Chun HJ, et al. Development of a Model for the Prediction of Treatment Response of Uterine Leiomyomas after Uterine Artery Embolization. Int J Med Sci. 15(14):1771-1777, 2018.
63. Kalina I, Toth A, Valcseva E, et al. Prognostic value of pre-embolisation MRI features of uterine fibroids in uterine artery embolisation. Clin Radiol. 73(12):1060.e1-1060.e7, 2018 12.
64. Sipola P, Ruuskanen A, Yawu L, et al. Preinterventional quantitative magnetic resonance imaging predicts uterus and leiomyoma size reduction after uterine artery embolization. J Magn Reson Imaging. 31(3):617-24, 2010 Mar.
65. Tang Y, Chen C, Duan H, Ma B, Liu P. Low vascularity predicts favourable outcomes in leiomyoma patients treated with uterine artery embolization. Eur Radiol. 26(10):3571-9, 2016 Oct.
66. Dutton S, Hirst A, McPherson K, Nicholson T, Maresh M. A UK multicentre retrospective cohort study comparing hysterectomy and uterine artery embolisation for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids (HOPEFUL study): main results on medium-term safety and efficacy. BJOG 2007;114:1340-51.
67. Keung JJ, Spies JB, Caridi TM. Uterine artery embolization: A review of current concepts. [Review]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 46:66-73, 2018 Jan.
68. Campbell J, Rajan DK, Kachura JR, et al. Efficacy of Ovarian Artery Embolization for Uterine Fibroids: Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluations. Can Assoc Radiol J. 66(2):164-70, 2015 May.
69. Gupta A, Grunhagen T. Live MR angiographic roadmapping for uterine artery embolization: a feasibility study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 24(11):1690-7, 2013 Nov.
70. Koesters C, Powerski MJ, Froeling V, Kroencke TJ, Scheurig-Muenkler C. Uterine artery embolization in single symptomatic leiomyoma: do anatomical imaging criteria predict clinical presentation and long-term outcome?. Acta Radiol. 55(4):441-9, 2014 May.
71. Nikolaidis P, Siddiqi AJ, Carr JC, et al. Incidence of nonviable leiomyomas on contrast material-enhanced pelvic MR imaging in patients referred for uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1465-71.
72. Dao D, Kang SJ, Midia M. The utility of apparent diffusion coefficients for predicting treatment response to uterine arterial embolization for uterine leiomyomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Interv Radiol. 25(2):157-165, 2019 Mar.
73. Keserci B, Duc NM. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters in Predicting the Treatment Outcome of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Uterine Fibroids With an Immediate Nonperfused Volume Ratio of at Least 90. Acad Radiol. 25(10):1257-1269, 2018 10.
74. Kim YS, Lim HK, Park MJ, et al. Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Assessing Immediate Therapeutic Response to Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Uterine Fibroids. Invest Radiol. 51(1):15-24, 2016 Jan.
75. Mindjuk I, Trumm CG, Herzog P, Stahl R, Matzko M. MRI predictors of clinical success in MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) treatments of uterine fibroids: results from a single centre. Eur Radiol. 25(5):1317-28, 2015 May.
76. Yeo SY, Kim YS, Lim HK, Rhim H, Jung SH, Hwang NY. Uterine fibroids: Influence of "T2-Rim sign" on immediate therapeutic responses to magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation. Eur J Radiol. 97:21-30, 2017 Dec.
77. Ghai S, Rajan DK, Benjamin MS, Asch MR, Ghai S, Uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas: pre- and postprocedural evaluation with US. [Review] [60 refs]. Radiographics. 25(5):1159-72; discussion 1173-6, 2005 Sep-Oct.
78. Weintraub JL, Romano WJ, Kirsch MJ, Sampaleanu DM, Madrazo BL. Uterine artery embolization: sonographic imaging findings. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:633-7; quiz 39-40.
79. Czuczwar P, Wozniak S, Szkodziak P, et al. Influence of ulipristal acetate therapy compared with uterine artery embolization on fibroid volume and vascularity indices assessed by three-dimensional ultrasound: prospective observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 45(6):744-50, 2015 Jun.
80. Tal R, Segars JH. The role of angiogenic factors in fibroid pathogenesis: potential implications for future therapy. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:194-216.
81. McLucas B, Perrella R, Goodwin S, Adler L, Dalrymple J. Role of uterine artery Doppler flow in fibroid embolization. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:113-20; quiz 22-3.
82. Nieuwenhuis LL, Keizer AL, Stoelinga B, et al. Fibroid vascularisation assessed with three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound is a predictor for uterine fibroid growth: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 125(5):577-584, 2018 Apr.
83. Verma SK, Gonsalves CF, Baltarowich OH, Mitchell DG, Lev-Toaff AS, Bergin D. Spectrum of imaging findings on MRI and CT after uterine artery embolization. Abdom Imaging. 35(1):118-28, 2010 Feb.
84. Deshmukh SP, Gonsalves CF, Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG. Role of MR imaging of uterine leiomyomas before and after embolization. [Review]. Radiographics. 32(6):E251-81, 2012 Oct.
85. Kim YS, Lim HK, Kim JH, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging predicts immediate therapeutic response of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Invest Radiol. 46(10):639-47, 2011 Oct.
86. Naguib NN, Mbalisike E, Nour-Eldin NE, et al. Leiomyoma volume changes at follow-up after uterine artery embolization: correlation with the initial leiomyoma volume and location. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 21(4):490-5, 2010 Apr.
87. Wei C, Fang X, Wang CB, Chen Y, Xu X, Dong JN. The predictive value of quantitative DCE metrics for immediate therapeutic response of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Abdom Radiol. 43(8):2169-2175, 2018 08.
88. Kroencke TJ, Scheurig C, Poellinger A, Gronewold M, Hamm B. Uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas: percentage of infarction predicts clinical outcome. Radiology. 255(3):834-41, 2010 Jun.
89. Liao D, Xiao Z, Lv F, Chen J, Qiu L. Non-contrast enhanced MRI for assessment of uterine fibroids' early response to ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound thermal ablation. Eur J Radiol. 122:108670, 2020 Jan.
90. Cao M, Qian L, Zhang X, et al. Monitoring Leiomyoma Response to Uterine Artery Embolization Using Diffusion and Perfusion Indices from Diffusion-Weighted Imaging. Biomed Res Int. 2017:3805073, 2017.
91. Sutter O, Soyer P, Shotar E, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine leiomyomas following uterine artery embolization. Eur Radiol. 26(10):3558-70, 2016 Oct.
92. Kirpalani A, Chong J, Yang N, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging properties of uterine fibroids pre- and post-uterine fibroid embolisation. Eur J Radiol. 83(9):1620-5, 2014 Sep.
93. Ikink ME, Voogt MJ, van den Bosch MA, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging using different b-value combinations for the evaluation of treatment results after volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids. Eur Radiol. 24(9):2118-27, 2014 Sep.
94. Jacobs MA, Gultekin DH, Kim HS. Comparison between diffusion-weighted imaging, T2-weighted, and postcontrast T1-weighted imaging after MR-guided, high intensity, focused ultrasound treatment of uterine leiomyomata: preliminary results. Med Phys. 37(9):4768-76, 2010 Sep.
95. Li C, Jin C, Liang T, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound of uterine fibroids: whole-tumor quantitative perfusion for prediction of immediate ablation response. Acta Radiol. 61(8):1125-1133, 2020 Aug.
96. Munro MG, Storz K, Abbott JA, et al. AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hysteroscopic Distending Media: (Replaces Hysteroscopic Fluid Monitoring Guidelines. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7:167-168.). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:137-48.
97. Walker WJ, Pelage JP. Uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids: clinical results in 400 women with imaging follow up. BJOG 2002;109:1262-72.
98. Vott S, Bonilla SM, Goodwin SC, et al. CT findings after uterine artery embolization. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;24:846-8.
99. Nicholson TA, Pelage JP, Ettles DF. Fibroid calcification after uterine artery embolization: ultrasonographic appearance and pathology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:443-6.
100. Tranquart F, Brunereau L, Cottier JP, et al. Prospective sonographic assessment of uterine artery embolization for the treatment of fibroids. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19:81-7.
101. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.