M Wilson1,2, K Muir3, D Reddy4, R Webster4, C Kapoor1, E Miller5. 1. From the Department of Medical Imaging (M.W., C.K., E.M.). 2. Department of Neurology (M.W.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Pediatric Neurology (K.M.). 4. Research Institute (D.R., R.W.), Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. From the Department of Medical Imaging (M.W., C.K., E.M.) EMiller@cheo.on.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The superior diagnostic accuracy of fetal MR imaging in detecting fetal brain abnormalities has been previously demonstrated; however, the ability of fetal MR imaging to prognosticate postnatal outcome is not well-studied. We performed a retrospective analysis to determine the prognostic accuracy of fetal MR imaging in predicting postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all fetal MR imaging performed at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario during a 10-year period and assessed agreement between prenatal prognosis and postnatal outcome. Prenatal prognosis was determined by a pediatric neurologist who reviewed the fetal MR imaging report and categorized each pregnancy as having a favorable, indeterminate, or poor prognosis. Assessment of postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome was made solely on the basis of the child's Gross Motor Function Classification System score and whether the child developed epilepsy. Postnatal outcome was categorized as favorable, intermediate, or poor. We also assessed the diagnostic accuracy of fetal MR imaging by comparing prenatal and postnatal imaging diagnoses. RESULTS: We reviewed 145 fetal MR images: 114 were included in the assessment of diagnostic accuracy, and 104 were included in the assessment of prognostic accuracy. There was 93.0% agreement between prenatal and postnatal imaging diagnoses. Prognosis was favorable in 44.2%, indeterminate in 50.0%, and poor in 5.8% of pregnancies. There was 93.5% agreement between a favorable prenatal prognosis and a favorable postnatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A favorable prenatal prognosis is highly predictive of a favorable postnatal outcome. Further studies are required to better understand the role of fetal MR imaging in prognosticating postnatal development, particularly in pregnancies with indeterminate and poor prognoses.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The superior diagnostic accuracy of fetal MR imaging in detecting fetal brain abnormalities has been previously demonstrated; however, the ability of fetal MR imaging to prognosticate postnatal outcome is not well-studied. We performed a retrospective analysis to determine the prognostic accuracy of fetal MR imaging in predicting postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all fetal MR imaging performed at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario during a 10-year period and assessed agreement between prenatal prognosis and postnatal outcome. Prenatal prognosis was determined by a pediatric neurologist who reviewed the fetal MR imaging report and categorized each pregnancy as having a favorable, indeterminate, or poor prognosis. Assessment of postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome was made solely on the basis of the child's Gross Motor Function Classification System score and whether the child developed epilepsy. Postnatal outcome was categorized as favorable, intermediate, or poor. We also assessed the diagnostic accuracy of fetal MR imaging by comparing prenatal and postnatal imaging diagnoses. RESULTS: We reviewed 145 fetal MR images: 114 were included in the assessment of diagnostic accuracy, and 104 were included in the assessment of prognostic accuracy. There was 93.0% agreement between prenatal and postnatal imaging diagnoses. Prognosis was favorable in 44.2%, indeterminate in 50.0%, and poor in 5.8% of pregnancies. There was 93.5% agreement between a favorable prenatal prognosis and a favorable postnatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A favorable prenatal prognosis is highly predictive of a favorable postnatal outcome. Further studies are required to better understand the role of fetal MR imaging in prognosticating postnatal development, particularly in pregnancies with indeterminate and poor prognoses.
Authors: Martine van Doorn; Katrien Oude Rengerink; Esther A Newsum; Liesbeth Reneman; Charles B Majoie; Eva Pajkrt Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2015-11-23
Authors: Kyla J Patek; Beth M Kline-Fath; Robert J Hopkin; Valentina V Pilipenko; Timothy M Crombleholme; Christine G Spaeth Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Paul D Griffiths; Michael Bradburn; Michael J Campbell; Cindy L Cooper; Ruth Graham; Deborah Jarvis; Mark D Kilby; Gerald Mason; Cara Mooney; Stephen C Robson; Allan Wailoo Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter S Dayan; Kathleen Lillis; Jonathan Bennett; Gregory Conners; Pam Bailey; James Callahan; Cigdem Akman; Neil Feldstein; Joshua Kriger; W Allen Hauser; Nathan Kuppermann Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Mariana C Diogo; Daniela Prayer; Gerlinde M Gruber; Peter C Brugger; Friedrich Stuhr; Michael Weber; Dieter Bettelheim; Gregor Kasprian Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Anthony R Hart; Nicholas D Embleton; Michael Bradburn; Daniel J A Connolly; Laura Mandefield; Cara Mooney; Paul D Griffiths Journal: Lancet Child Adolesc Health Date: 2019-11-27
Authors: Juan Fortea; Shahid H Zaman; Sigan Hartley; Michael S Rafii; Elizabeth Head; Maria Carmona-Iragui Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 59.935