open access

Vol 89, No 5 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2018-05-30
Get Citation

Postnatal verification of prenatal diagnoses established on foetal magnetic resonance imaging

Agnieszka Duczkowska, Anna Olwert, Marek Duczkowski, Monika Bekiesińska-Figatowska
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2018.0045
·
Pubmed: 30084478
·
Ginekol Pol 2018;89(5):262-270.

open access

Vol 89, No 5 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2018-05-30

Abstract

Objectives: The role of magnetic resonance imaging, similarly to ultrasound, in the evaluation of foetal anomalies is in­disputable. This gives rise to a question, whether prenatal diagnostics can replace postnatal one. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of foetal MRI in children with congenital anomalies by using postnatal MRI, X-ray/US and surgery (histopathol­ogy/autopsy) results as a reference standard.

Material and methods: 110 children were included in the analysis. All of them underwent foetal MRI, and the diagnoses were verified after birth. All the results were analysed both by: 1. evaluation of correctness of the prenatal diagnosis with the reference standard diagnosis of each patient, and 2. statistical evaluation of prenatal diagnosis using standard measures of binary diagnostic tests’ abilities.

Results: The accordance of prenatal and final diagnoses was 70%. Only 3.64% of patients were misdiagnosed. Most of the prenatal diagnoses that were incomplete (23.64%), concerned children who underwent surgery, and among them patients with abdominal cystic laesions of undetermined origin on foetal MRI constituted the majority. In 2.73% of cases prenatal diagnoses remained inconclusive.

Conclusions: High correlation of prenatal and postnatal tests’ results in the study material confirms the high value of foetal MRI in perinatal diagnostics. Comprehensive assessment of the foetus in prenatal MRI is very effective and facilitates impor­tant therapeutic decisions in the prenatal period (in utero treatment) and in perinatal care (application or withdrawal from the EXIT procedure, surgery or backtracking from neonatal resuscitation if it should bear the hallmarks of persistent therapy).

Abstract

Objectives: The role of magnetic resonance imaging, similarly to ultrasound, in the evaluation of foetal anomalies is in­disputable. This gives rise to a question, whether prenatal diagnostics can replace postnatal one. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of foetal MRI in children with congenital anomalies by using postnatal MRI, X-ray/US and surgery (histopathol­ogy/autopsy) results as a reference standard.

Material and methods: 110 children were included in the analysis. All of them underwent foetal MRI, and the diagnoses were verified after birth. All the results were analysed both by: 1. evaluation of correctness of the prenatal diagnosis with the reference standard diagnosis of each patient, and 2. statistical evaluation of prenatal diagnosis using standard measures of binary diagnostic tests’ abilities.

Results: The accordance of prenatal and final diagnoses was 70%. Only 3.64% of patients were misdiagnosed. Most of the prenatal diagnoses that were incomplete (23.64%), concerned children who underwent surgery, and among them patients with abdominal cystic laesions of undetermined origin on foetal MRI constituted the majority. In 2.73% of cases prenatal diagnoses remained inconclusive.

Conclusions: High correlation of prenatal and postnatal tests’ results in the study material confirms the high value of foetal MRI in perinatal diagnostics. Comprehensive assessment of the foetus in prenatal MRI is very effective and facilitates impor­tant therapeutic decisions in the prenatal period (in utero treatment) and in perinatal care (application or withdrawal from the EXIT procedure, surgery or backtracking from neonatal resuscitation if it should bear the hallmarks of persistent therapy).

Get Citation

Keywords

foetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), congenital anomalies, prenatal diagnosis, postnatal diagnosis

Supplementary Files (1)
Tables II-V
Download
29KB
About this article
Title

Postnatal verification of prenatal diagnoses established on foetal magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 89, No 5 (2018)

Pages

262-270

Published online

2018-05-30

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2018.0045

Pubmed

30084478

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2018;89(5):262-270.

Keywords

foetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
congenital anomalies
prenatal diagnosis
postnatal diagnosis

Authors

Agnieszka Duczkowska
Anna Olwert
Marek Duczkowski
Monika Bekiesińska-Figatowska

References (34)
  1. Perrone A, Savelli S, Maggi C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasonography in fetal pathology. Radiol Med. 2008; 113(2): 225–241.
  2. Peruzzi P, Corbitt RJ, Raffel C. Magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasonography for the in utero evaluation of central nervous system anomalies. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010; 6(4): 340–345.
  3. Levine D. Timing of MRI in pregnancy, repeat exams, access, and physician qualifications. Semin Perinatol. 2013; 37(5): 340–344.
  4. Bulas D, Egloff A. Benefits and risks of MRI in pregnancy. Semin Perinatol. 2013; 37(5): 301–304.
  5. REEVES MJ, WHITBY EH, PALEY M, et al. THE CURRENT ROLE OF FETAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2008; 19(01).
  6. Bekiesinska-Figatowska M, Herman-Sucharska I, Romaniuk-Doroszewska A, et al. Diagnostic problems in case of twin pregnancies: US vs. MRI study. J Perinat Med. 2013; 41(5): 535–541.
  7. Stevenson M, Nunes T, Heuer C, et al. epiR: Tools for the Analysis of Epidemiological Data, R package version 0.9-79. 2016; Available from: https://CRAN. R-project org/package=epiR. ; 2016.
  8. Saleem SN. Fetal MRI: An approach to practice: A review. J Adv Res. 2014; 5(5): 507–523.
  9. Whitehead MT, Fricke ST, Gropman AL. Structural brain defects. Clin Perinatol. 2015; 42(2): 337–61, ix.
  10. Mahapatra AK. Anterior encephalocele - AIIMS experience a series of 133 patients. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2011; 6(Suppl 1): S27–S30.
  11. Barkovich AJ, Millen KJ, Dobyns WB. A developmental and genetic classification for midbrain-hindbrain malformations. Brain. 2009; 132(Pt 12): 3199–3230.
  12. Podberesky DJ, Towbin AJ, Eltomey MA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of anorectal malformations. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013; 21(4): 791–812.
  13. Spaggiari E, Faure G, Rousseau V, et al. Performance of prenatal diagnosis in esophageal atresia. Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35(9): 888–893.
  14. Hochart V, Verpillat P, Langlois C, et al. The contribution of fetal MR imaging to the assessment of oesophageal atresia. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25(2): 306–314.
  15. Ethun CG, Fallon SC, Cassady CI, et al. Fetal MRI improves diagnostic accuracy in patients referred to a fetal center for suspected esophageal atresia. J Pediatr Surg. 2014; 49(5): 712–715.
  16. Fallon SC, Ethun CG, Olutoye OO, et al. Comparing characteristics and outcomes in infants with prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of esophageal atresia. J Surg Res. 2014; 190(1): 242–245.
  17. Garabedian C, Verpillat P, Czerkiewicz I, et al. Does a combination of ultrasound, MRI, and biochemical amniotic fluid analysis improve prenatal diagnosis of esophageal atresia? Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34(9): 839–842.
  18. Peiro JL, Scorletti F, Sbragia L. Prenatal diagnosis of cloacal malformation. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2016; 25(2): 71–75.
  19. Livingston JC, Elicevik M, Breech L, et al. Persistent cloaca: a 10-year review of prenatal diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31(3): 403–407.
  20. Inaoka T, Sugimori H, Sasaki Y, et al. VIBE MRI for evaluating the normal and abnormal gastrointestinal tract in fetuses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(6): W303–W308.
  21. Veyrac C, Couture A, Saguintaah M, et al. MRI of fetal GI tract abnormalities. Abdom Imaging. 2004; 29(4): 411–420.
  22. Hugele F, Dumont C, Boulot P, et al. Does prenatal MRI enhance fetal diagnosis of intra-abdominal cysts? Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35(7): 669–674.
  23. Gupta P, Sharma R, Kumar S, et al. Role of MRI in fetal abdominal cystic masses detected on prenatal sonography. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010; 281(3): 519–526.
  24. Wassef M, Blei F, Adams D, et al. ISSVA Board and Scientific Committee. Vascular Anomalies Classification: Recommendations From the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies. Pediatrics. 2015; 136(1): e203–e214.
  25. Agha HM, Zakaria R, Mostafa FA, et al. Regression of a large congenital hepatic arteriovenous malformation. Tex Heart Inst J. 2015; 42(2): 184–187.
  26. Alomari AI, Al Masalmeh O, Shaikh R, et al. Hepatic failure in a rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma of the liver: failure of embolotherapy. Pediatr Radiol. 2009; 39(10): 1118–1123.
  27. Alamo L, Perrin L, Vial Y, et al. Prenatal imaging of congenital hepatic tumors: a report of three cases. Clin Imaging. 2017; 41: 112–117.
  28. Franchi-Abella S, Gorincour G, Avni F, et al. SFIPP-GRRIF (Société Francophone d’Imagerie Pédiatrique et Périnatale-Groupe de Recherche Radiopédiatrique en Imagerie Foetale). Hepatic haemangioma-prenatal imaging findings, complications and perinatal outcome in a case series. Pediatr Radiol. 2012; 42(3): 298–307.
  29. Colletti G, Ierardi AM. Understanding venous malformations of the head and neck: a comprehensive insight. Med Oncol. 2017; 34(3): 42.
  30. Nahm WK, Moise S, Eichenfield LF, et al. Venous malformations in blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: variable onset of presentation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 50(5 Suppl): S101–S106.
  31. Lloyd DFA, van Amerom JFP, Pushparajah K, et al. An exploration of the potential utility of fetal cardiovascular MRI as an adjunct to fetal echocardiography. Prenat Diagn. 2016; 36(10): 916–925.
  32. Zhu M. Fetal cardiac MRI. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2015; 17(Suppl 1): P220.
  33. Dong SZ, Zhu M. Pattern-based approach to fetal congenital cardiovascular anomalies using the transverse aortic arch view on prenatal cardiac MRI. Pediatr Radiol. 2015; 45(5): 743–750.
  34. Dong SZ, Zhu M, Li F. Preliminary experience with cardiovascular magnetic resonance in evaluation of fetal cardiovascular anomalies. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013; 15: 40.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl