MRI in complex prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25512/DIR.2008.02.2.03

For quoting:
Solopova A.E., Sinitsyn V.E., Huisman T. "MRI in complex prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities". Journal Diagnostic & interventional radiology. 2008; 2(2); 25-33.

authors:

Solopova A.E.

Sinitsyn V.E.

Huisman T.

keywords:

MRI

magnet resonance imaging

prenatal diagnostics

fetus

congenital abnormalities

Abstract:

The aim of the study is to evaluate the potentialities of MRI in prenatal differential diagnosis of congenital abnormalities (CA). Results of 65 MR I-studies were analyzed. Ultrasound findings of CA were the indications for MRI. MR-images were obtained on GESigna Execute II (1,5T). The final diagnoses were made by postnatal autopsy, which served as a «golden standard» of neonatal CA diagnostics. Sensitivity of the MRI for fetal CA detection was 96,7%, specificity - 100%, diagnostic accuracy - 96,9%. Predicting reliability of the method for positive results was 100%, for negative results- 71,4%. In 46,2% of cases MRI and echo results agreed, in 23,1% MRI findings changed the diagnosis, and in 16,2% MRI provided additional information, which in 10,8% changed the pregnancy management strategy. Thus, MRI is shown to be highly informative in diagnosis of the fetal CA, and be able to refine the ultrasound findings. Using the MRI improves substantially the results of prenatal testing for CA, decreases the need for invasive procedures, and allows adequate planning of antenatal and postnatal management.

Reference

1. Демикова В.П., Лапина А.С. Система мониторинга врожденных пороков развития в Российской Федерации. Лекция на II Российском конгрессе «Современные технологии в педиатрии и детской хирургии». М. 2003.

2. Панов В.О. Методические особенности ивозможности магнитно-резонансной томографии в антенатальной диагностике нарушений внутриутробного плода. Радиология-практика. 2006; 2: 12-23.

3. Levine D. Ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in fetal evaluation. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2001; 12: 25-38.

4. Юсупов К.Ф., Ибатуллин М.М., МихайловИ.М., Панов В.О. МРТ в диагностике аномалий развития внутриутробного плода. Радиология-практика. 2006; 2: 24-42.

5. Munoz H., Ortega X., Soto G. et al. OC19:Ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in prenatal diagnosis of fetal malformations. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; .30: 373.

6. Whitby E.H., Paley M.N., Sprigg A. et al. Comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in 100 singleton pregnancies with suspected brain abnormalities. Bjog. 2004;111:784-792.

7. Терновой С.К., Волобуев А.И., Куринов С.Б., Панов В.О., Шария М.А.Магнитно-резонансная пельвиометрия. Медицинская визуализация. 2001; 4: 6-12.

8. Breysem L., Bosmans H., Dymarkowski S. et al. The value of fast MR imaging as an adjunct to ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. Eur. Radiol. 2003; 13: 1538-1548.

9. Huisman ТА, Martin E., Kubik-Huch R., Marincek B. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging of the brain: technical considerations and normal brain development. Eur. J. Radiol. 2002;12: 1941-1951.

10. Brugger PC, Prayer D. Fetal abdominal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. J. Radiol. 2006; 57: 278-293.

11. Prayer D., Kasprian G., Krampl E. et al. MRI of normal fetal brain development. Eur. J. Radiol. 2006; 57: 199-216.

12. Wang G.B., Shan R.Q., Ma Y.X. et al. Fetal central nervous system anomalies: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography for diagnosis. Engl. Chin. Med.J. 2006; 119:1272-1277.

13. Kasprian G., Balassy C., Brugger P.C., Prayer D. MRI of normal and pathological fetal lung development. Eur. J. Radiol. 2006; 57: 261-270.

14. Brugger P.C., Stuhr F., Lindner C., Prayer D. Methods of fetal MR: beyond T2-weighted imaging. Eur.J. Radiol. 2006; 57: 172-181.

15. Hormann M., Brugger PC, Balassy C, Witzani L., Prayer D. Fetal MRI of the urinary system. Eur.J. Radiol. 2006; 57: 303-311.