Uterin Diffüz ve Fokal Adenomyozisin Tanısı

Van den Bosch T, de Bruijn AM, de Leeuw RA, et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for di- agnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound in Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53:576–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19096.

Byun JY, Kim SE, Choi BG, et al. Diffuse and Focal Adenomyosis: MR Imaging Findings. RadioGraphics. 1999;19:S161–70. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiograp- hics.19.suppl_1.g99oc03s161.

Dietrich JE. An update on adenomyosis in the adoles- cent. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:388–92. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32833cefaf.

Benagiano G, Brosens I. History of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:449–63. htt-

ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.007.

Garcia L, Isaacson K. Adenomyosis: Review of the Li- terature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:428–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.004.

Bird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus—revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972;112:583–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002- 9378(72)90781-8.

Moawad G, Fruscalzo A, Youssef Y, et al. Adenomyo- sis: An Updated Review on Diagnosis and Classification. J Clin Med. 2023;12:4828. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jcm12144828.

Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:312–22. https://doi. org/10.1093/humupd/4.4.312.

Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, et al. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obs- tet. 2015;291:917–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404- 014-3437-8.

Brosens I, Derwig I, Brosens J, et al. The enigmatic ute- rine junctional zone: the missing link between repro- ductive disorders and major obstetrical disorders? Hum Reprod. 2010;25:569–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dep474.

Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:389–97. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.024.

Sasson IE, Taylor HS. Stem Cells and the Pathogenesis of Endometriosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1127:106– 15. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1434.014.

Farquhar C, Brosens I. Medical and surgical manage- ment of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:603–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpo- bgyn.2006.01.012.

Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221–35.

Parazzini F, Mais V, Cipriani S, et al. Determinants of adenomyosis in women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: Results from a prospective multicentric study in Italy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2009;143:103–6. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.12.010.

Vercellini P, Viganò P, Somigliana E, et al. Adenomyo- sis: epidemiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:465–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2006.01.017.

Vitonis AF, Baer HJ, Hankinson SE, et al. A prospective study of body size during childhood and early adultho- od and the incidence of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1325–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ deq039.

Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:511–21. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.016.

Taran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, et al. Unders- tanding adenomyosis: a case control study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1223–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertns- tert.2009.06.049.

Bazot M, Fiori O, Darai E. Adenomyosis in endomet- riosis – prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1101–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ dei448.

Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, et al. Adenomyosis in endometriosis—prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2309–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dei021.

Chapron C, Vannuccini S, Santulli P, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis: an integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26:392–411. https:// doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz049.

Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, et al. Transvaginal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: Sys- tematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmig.2017.08.653.

Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopat- hology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33. https://doi. org/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427.

Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:569–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpo- bgyn.2006.01.005.

Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FPG, et al. Ter- ms, definitions and measurements to describe sonog- raphic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Ute- rus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultra- sound in Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:284–98. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.14806.

Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound di- agnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: State of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:16– 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.013.

Harmsen MJ, Van den Bosch T, de Leeuw RA, et al. Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound in Obstet Gynecol. 2022;60:118– 31. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24786.

Martire FG, d’Abate C, Schettini G, et al. Adenom- yosis and Adolescence: A Challenging Diagnosis and Complex Management. Diagnostics. 2024;14:2344. htt- ps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212344.

Bluhm M, Dueholm M. Imaging for Adenomyosis: Making the Diagnosis by Sonography. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmig.2019.10.001.

Tellum T, Nygaard S, Lieng M. Noninvasive Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: A Structured Review and Meta-a- nalysis of Diagnostic Accuracy in Imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:408-418.e3. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.001.

Kobayashi H, Imanaka S. Understanding Ultrasound Features that Predict Symptom Severity in Patients with Adenomyosis: a Systematic Review. Reprod Sci. 2024;31:320–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023- 01318-5.

O’Shea A, Figueiredo G, Lee SI. Imaging Diagnosis of Adenomyosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38:119–28. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1719017.

Cunningham RK, Horrow MM, Smith RJ, et al. Adenomyosis: A Sonographic Diagnosis. RadioGraphics. 2018;38:1576–89. https://doi.org/10.1148/ rg.2018180080.

Green AR, Styles JA, Parrott EL, et al. Neonatal ta- moxifen treatment of mice leads to adenomyosis but not uterine cancer. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2005;56:255– 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etp.2004.10.001.

Exacoustos C, Manganaro L, Zupi E. Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28:655–81. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.010.

Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, et al. Ade- nomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ult- rasound in Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:471–9. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.8900.

Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Göynümer G, et al. Transvagi- nal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound in Obstet Gyne- col. 2007;30:341–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3985.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ GCO.0b013e3282f1bf00.

Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, et al. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1374–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349.2010.512061.

Rees CO, Nederend J, Mischi M, et al. Objective me- asures of adenomyosis on MRI and their diagnostic accuracya systematic review & meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1377–91. https:// doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14139.

Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, et al. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:549– 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0576-z.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, et al. Magne- tic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultraso- nography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:588–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015- 0282(01)01962-8.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ GCO.0b013e3282f1bf00.

Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: Usual and Unusual Imaging Manifestations, Pitfalls, and Problem-solving MR Imaging Techniques. RadioG- raphics. 2011;31:99–115. https://doi.org/10.1148/ rg.311105110.

Gordts S, Brosens JJ, Fusi L, et al. Uterine adenom- yosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:244–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60201-5.

Bazot M, Daraï E. Sonography and MR imaging for the assessment of deep pelvic endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:178–85. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.jmig.2005.01.014.

Verma SK, Lev-Toaff AS, Baltarowich OH, et al. Ade- nomyosis: Sonohysterography with MRI Correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1112–6. https://doi. org/10.2214/AJR.08.1405.

Di Spiezio Sardo A, Calagna G, Santangelo F, et al. The Role of Hysteroscopy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Adenomyosis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1–7. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2518396.

Gordts S, Campo R, Brosens I. Hysteroscopic diag- nosis and excision of myometrial cystic adenomyosis. Gynecol Surg. 2014;11:273–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10397-014-0861-5.

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. 2018;44:1654–63. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.03.027.

Liu X, Ding D, Ren Y, et al. Transvaginal Elastosonog- raphy as an Imaging Technique for Diagnosing Adenomyosis. Reprod Sci. 2018;25:498–514. https://doi. org/10.1177/1933719117750752.

Jain V, Hojo E, McKillop G, et al. Feasibility study of the application of Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) to diagnose adenomyosis. F S Sci. 2025. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.xfss.2025.03.003.

Simpson WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingograp- hy: A Reemerging Study. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:419– 31. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.262055109.

Zhao Q, Yang T, Xu C, et al. Automatic diagno- sis for adenomyosis in ultrasound images by deep neural networks. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2024;301:128–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejogrb.2024.07.046.

Raimondo D, Raffone A, Aru AC, et al. Application of Deep Learning Model in the Sonographic Diagnosis of Uterine Adenomyosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:1724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031724.

Li J, Wang W, Liao L, et al. Analysis of the nonperfused volume ratio of adenomyosis from MRI images based on fewshot learning. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66:045019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abd66b.

Ying J, Jing X, Gao F, et al. Prediction of Ablation Rate for High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy of Adenomyosis in MR Images Based on Multi-model Fusion. J Imaging Inform Med. 2024;37:1579–90. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01063-4.

Van den Bosch T, de Bruijn AM, de Leeuw RA, et al. Sonographic classification and reporting system for di- agnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound in Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53:576–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19096.

Byun JY, Kim SE, Choi BG, et al. Diffuse and Focal Adenomyosis: MR Imaging Findings. RadioGraphics. 1999;19:S161–70. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiograp- hics.19.suppl_1.g99oc03s161.

Dietrich JE. An update on adenomyosis in the adoles- cent. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:388–92. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32833cefaf.

Benagiano G, Brosens I. History of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:449–63. htt-

ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.007.

Garcia L, Isaacson K. Adenomyosis: Review of the Li- terature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:428–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.004.

Bird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus—revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972;112:583–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002- 9378(72)90781-8.

Moawad G, Fruscalzo A, Youssef Y, et al. Adenomyo- sis: An Updated Review on Diagnosis and Classification. J Clin Med. 2023;12:4828. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jcm12144828.

Ferenczy A. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:312–22. https://doi. org/10.1093/humupd/4.4.312.

Leyendecker G, Bilgicyildirim A, Inacker M, et al. Adenomyosis and endometriosis. Re-visiting their association and further insights into the mechanisms of auto-traumatisation. An MRI study. Arch Gynecol Obs- tet. 2015;291:917–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404- 014-3437-8.

Brosens I, Derwig I, Brosens J, et al. The enigmatic ute- rine junctional zone: the missing link between repro- ductive disorders and major obstetrical disorders? Hum Reprod. 2010;25:569–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dep474.

Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:389–97. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.024.

Sasson IE, Taylor HS. Stem Cells and the Pathogenesis of Endometriosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1127:106– 15. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1434.014.

Farquhar C, Brosens I. Medical and surgical manage- ment of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:603–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpo- bgyn.2006.01.012.

Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221–35.

Parazzini F, Mais V, Cipriani S, et al. Determinants of adenomyosis in women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: Results from a prospective multicentric study in Italy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2009;143:103–6. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.12.010.

Vercellini P, Viganò P, Somigliana E, et al. Adenomyo- sis: epidemiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:465–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2006.01.017.

Vitonis AF, Baer HJ, Hankinson SE, et al. A prospective study of body size during childhood and early adultho- od and the incidence of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1325–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ deq039.

Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:511–21. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.01.016.

Taran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, et al. Unders- tanding adenomyosis: a case control study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1223–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertns- tert.2009.06.049.

Bazot M, Fiori O, Darai E. Adenomyosis in endomet- riosis – prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1101–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ dei448.

Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, et al. Adenomyosis in endometriosis—prevalence and impact on fertility. Evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2309–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dei021.

Chapron C, Vannuccini S, Santulli P, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis: an integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26:392–411. https:// doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz049.

Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, et al. Transvaginal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: Sys- tematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmig.2017.08.653.

Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopat- hology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33. https://doi. org/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427.

Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:569–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpo- bgyn.2006.01.005.

Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FPG, et al. Ter- ms, definitions and measurements to describe sonog- raphic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Ute- rus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultra- sound in Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:284–98. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.14806.

Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D. Ultrasound di- agnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis: State of the art. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:16– 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.013.

Harmsen MJ, Van den Bosch T, de Leeuw RA, et al. Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound in Obstet Gynecol. 2022;60:118– 31. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24786.

Martire FG, d’Abate C, Schettini G, et al. Adenom- yosis and Adolescence: A Challenging Diagnosis and Complex Management. Diagnostics. 2024;14:2344. htt- ps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212344.

Bluhm M, Dueholm M. Imaging for Adenomyosis: Making the Diagnosis by Sonography. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmig.2019.10.001.

Tellum T, Nygaard S, Lieng M. Noninvasive Diagnosis of Adenomyosis: A Structured Review and Meta-a- nalysis of Diagnostic Accuracy in Imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:408-418.e3. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.001.

Kobayashi H, Imanaka S. Understanding Ultrasound Features that Predict Symptom Severity in Patients with Adenomyosis: a Systematic Review. Reprod Sci. 2024;31:320–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023- 01318-5.

O’Shea A, Figueiredo G, Lee SI. Imaging Diagnosis of Adenomyosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38:119–28. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1719017.

Cunningham RK, Horrow MM, Smith RJ, et al. Adenomyosis: A Sonographic Diagnosis. RadioGraphics. 2018;38:1576–89. https://doi.org/10.1148/ rg.2018180080.

Green AR, Styles JA, Parrott EL, et al. Neonatal ta- moxifen treatment of mice leads to adenomyosis but not uterine cancer. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2005;56:255– 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etp.2004.10.001.

Exacoustos C, Manganaro L, Zupi E. Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28:655–81. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.010.

Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A, et al. Ade- nomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ult- rasound in Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:471–9. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.8900.

Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Göynümer G, et al. Transvagi- nal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound in Obstet Gyne- col. 2007;30:341–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3985.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ GCO.0b013e3282f1bf00.

Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, et al. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1374–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349.2010.512061.

Rees CO, Nederend J, Mischi M, et al. Objective me- asures of adenomyosis on MRI and their diagnostic accuracya systematic review & meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1377–91. https:// doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14139.

Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, et al. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:549– 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0576-z.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, et al. Magne- tic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultraso- nography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:588–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015- 0282(01)01962-8.

Dueholm M, Lundorf E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ GCO.0b013e3282f1bf00.

Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K. Adenomyosis: Usual and Unusual Imaging Manifestations, Pitfalls, and Problem-solving MR Imaging Techniques. RadioG- raphics. 2011;31:99–115. https://doi.org/10.1148/ rg.311105110.

Gordts S, Brosens JJ, Fusi L, et al. Uterine adenom- yosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:244–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60201-5.

Bazot M, Daraï E. Sonography and MR imaging for the assessment of deep pelvic endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:178–85. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.jmig.2005.01.014.

Verma SK, Lev-Toaff AS, Baltarowich OH, et al. Ade- nomyosis: Sonohysterography with MRI Correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1112–6. https://doi. org/10.2214/AJR.08.1405.

Di Spiezio Sardo A, Calagna G, Santangelo F, et al. The Role of Hysteroscopy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Adenomyosis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1–7. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2518396.

Gordts S, Campo R, Brosens I. Hysteroscopic diag- nosis and excision of myometrial cystic adenomyosis. Gynecol Surg. 2014;11:273–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10397-014-0861-5.

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. 2018;44:1654–63. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.03.027.

Liu X, Ding D, Ren Y, et al. Transvaginal Elastosonog- raphy as an Imaging Technique for Diagnosing Adenomyosis. Reprod Sci. 2018;25:498–514. https://doi. org/10.1177/1933719117750752.

Jain V, Hojo E, McKillop G, et al. Feasibility study of the application of Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) to diagnose adenomyosis. F S Sci. 2025. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.xfss.2025.03.003.

Simpson WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingograp- hy: A Reemerging Study. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:419– 31. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.262055109.

Zhao Q, Yang T, Xu C, et al. Automatic diagno- sis for adenomyosis in ultrasound images by deep neural networks. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2024;301:128–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejogrb.2024.07.046.

Raimondo D, Raffone A, Aru AC, et al. Application of Deep Learning Model in the Sonographic Diagnosis of Uterine Adenomyosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:1724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031724.

Li J, Wang W, Liao L, et al. Analysis of the nonperfused volume ratio of adenomyosis from MRI images based on fewshot learning. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66:045019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abd66b.

Ying J, Jing X, Gao F, et al. Prediction of Ablation Rate for High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy of Adenomyosis in MR Images Based on Multi-model Fusion. J Imaging Inform Med. 2024;37:1579–90. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01063-4.