Prenatal MRI of neck masses with special focus on the evaluation of foetal airway.
EXIT procedure
Foetal airway
Foetal pathology
Neck mass
Prenatal MRI
Prenatal diagnosis
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
08
12
2018
accepted:
24
05
2019
pubmed:
9
6
2019
medline:
11
10
2019
entrez:
9
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging is the best tool to visualize foetal airway. To evaluate the performance of MRI in the assessment of foetal airway status in the presence of a neck mass. Two paediatric radiologists with 12- and 2-year experience in foetal imaging retrospectively analysed 23 foetal MRI examinations, performed between 2001 and 2016, after a second-level ultrasound suspicious for presence of a neck mass. Postnatal imaging, postoperative report, histology, autopsy, and clinical outcomes were the reference standard to calculate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of prenatal MRI in detecting airway patency. We used the Cohen к statistics to estimate the interobserver agreement. We also assessed MRI performance in the diagnosis of the mass nature. We obtained data about postnatal airway status in 19 of 23 patients; prenatal MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 9/9 [100%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 66-100%], specificity 8/10 (80%, 44-98%), accuracy 17/19 (89%, 67-99%), PPV 9/11 (82%, 48-98%), and NPV 8/8 (100%, 63-100%); the interobserver agreement was perfect. Prenatal MRI correctly identified 21 of 23 masses (к = 0.858); the interobserver agreement was almost perfect (к = 0.851). Prenatal MRI demonstrated high accuracy in assessing foetal airway status and diagnosing mass nature, allowing proper delivery planning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging is the best tool to visualize foetal airway.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the performance of MRI in the assessment of foetal airway status in the presence of a neck mass.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Two paediatric radiologists with 12- and 2-year experience in foetal imaging retrospectively analysed 23 foetal MRI examinations, performed between 2001 and 2016, after a second-level ultrasound suspicious for presence of a neck mass. Postnatal imaging, postoperative report, histology, autopsy, and clinical outcomes were the reference standard to calculate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of prenatal MRI in detecting airway patency. We used the Cohen к statistics to estimate the interobserver agreement. We also assessed MRI performance in the diagnosis of the mass nature.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We obtained data about postnatal airway status in 19 of 23 patients; prenatal MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 9/9 [100%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 66-100%], specificity 8/10 (80%, 44-98%), accuracy 17/19 (89%, 67-99%), PPV 9/11 (82%, 48-98%), and NPV 8/8 (100%, 63-100%); the interobserver agreement was perfect. Prenatal MRI correctly identified 21 of 23 masses (к = 0.858); the interobserver agreement was almost perfect (к = 0.851).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Prenatal MRI demonstrated high accuracy in assessing foetal airway status and diagnosing mass nature, allowing proper delivery planning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31175537
doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01049-1
pii: 10.1007/s11547-019-01049-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
917-925Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999 May;13(5):327-34
pubmed: 10380297
J Pediatr Surg. 1999 Jul;34(7):1164-8
pubmed: 10442614
Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):691-6
pubmed: 10580940
Radiographics. 2000 Sep-Oct;20(5):1227-43
pubmed: 10992014
Prenat Diagn. 2000 Dec;20(12):1004-7
pubmed: 11113915
Pediatr Radiol. 2001 Oct;31(10):727-31
pubmed: 11685443
J Pediatr Surg. 2002 Mar;37(3):418-26
pubmed: 11877660
Radiology. 2003 Aug;228(2):379-88
pubmed: 12821772
Semin Pediatr Surg. 2003 Aug;12(3):143-53
pubmed: 12961108
Semin Pediatr Surg. 2003 Aug;12(3):190-5
pubmed: 12961113
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Mar;39(3):375-80; discussion 375-80
pubmed: 15017555
Radiographics. 2005 Jan-Feb;25(1):215-42
pubmed: 15653597
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2005 Jun;11(2):87-9
pubmed: 15957094
J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Jan;44(1):76-9
pubmed: 19159721
Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Nov;39(11):1147-57
pubmed: 19238373
Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Nov;39(11):1158-72
pubmed: 19774372
Pediatr Radiol. 2010 Jul;40(7):1263-73; quiz 1321-2
pubmed: 20309537
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Oct;282(4):355-61
pubmed: 20473617
Radiographics. 2011 Mar-Apr;31(2):511-26
pubmed: 21415194
Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2016 Jan-Mar;26(1):52-62
pubmed: 27081224
Lancet. 1983 Jan 1;1(8314-5):61-2
pubmed: 6129387
Pediatr Radiol. 1995;25(2):127-30
pubmed: 7596658
Med Pediatr Oncol. 1994;22(5):309-17
pubmed: 8127254
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Jun;123(6):641-5
pubmed: 9193229
Am J Perinatol. 1998 Apr;15(4):253-7
pubmed: 9565224
J Pediatr Surg. 1998 Nov;33(11):1599-604
pubmed: 9856875