Acute Abdominal Pain, Pelvic Pain
Conditions
Keywords
MRI, Acute abdominal pain, Pelvic pain, Diagnostic performance, Young women
Brief summary
Objective : To demonstrate diagnostic performances of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as compared to Computed Tomography (CT) as a second intention imaging modality in young women with acute non traumatic abdominopelvic pain and non contributive ultrasonography.
Detailed description
Methods : Consecutive women aged 18-40 years old with acute abdominopelvic pain referred to CT by the emergency Physician or gynaecologist after a non contributive ultrasonography will be included. After obtaining informed consent, all patients will undergo standard CT followed by an additional MRI examination, performed using a short MRI protocol and within 6 hour from CT. The gold standard or reference diagnosis will be established in consensus by an expert panel at 3 months follow up using a standardized diagnosis form. A retrospective reading will be performed independently for CT and MRI by radiologists blinded to the reference diagnosis, using the same standardized diagnosis form. CT and MRI accuracies will be compared.
Interventions
PROCEDUREAdditional MRI Examination
MRI will be performed using a short protocol within 6 hours from CT and with blinding from CT results
Sponsors
University Hospital, Montpellier
Direction Générale de l'Offre de Soins
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 40 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Women aged 18-40 years old * Women referred to CT following a non contributive ultrasonography * Women with acute non traumatic abdominopelvic pain (less than 5 day-duration) * Women with informed consent * Women with affiliation to health insurance
Exclusion criteria
* Women who underwent abdominopelvic surgery in the previous month * Suspicion of vital emergency such as shock preventing any delayed management caused by MRI examination * Contra-indication to MRI, including pace maker, ferro-magnetic material, foreign bodies with risk of mobilization during MRI examination * Women yet included in the study or included in another study * Women pregnant (positive beta chorionic gonadotrophic hormone testing) or breastfeeding * Women unable to undergo informed consent (vulnerable or protected by law)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic performances comparison between CT and MRI | 3 months | Diagnostic performances (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values) comparison between CT and MRI |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic performances of a conditional imaging strategy including first MRI for all cases and CT in cases where MRI is non contributive | 3 months | Diagnostic performances (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of a conditional imaging strategy including first MRI for all cases and CT in cases where MRI is non contributive (strategy built retrospectively) |
| Diagnostic performances of unenhanced MRI sequences versus complete MRI examination | 3 months | Diagnostic performances (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of unenhanced MRI sequences versus complete MRI examination (including both unenhanced and enhanced sequences) |
| Inter-reader agreement for MRI and CT diagnoses | 3 months | Inter-reader agreement (Kappa statistics) for MRI and CT diagnoses (retrospective reading) |
Countries
France
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORIngrid MILLET, MD, PhD
Departement of Medical Imaging - Montpellier University Hospital LAPEYRONIE Hospital
Outcome results
None listed