Diagnostic value of virtual autopsy using pm-MRI at 3T on malformed second trimester fetuses vs classic autopsy.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
19
03
2021
accepted:
05
11
2021
entrez:
29
11
2021
pubmed:
30
11
2021
medline:
8
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine the diagnostic value of virtual autopsy using post mortem-MRI (pm-MRI) at 3Tesla (T) compared to classic autopsy for the confirmation of fetal structural anomalies and secondly to establish which cases of termination of pregnancy would benefit mostly from a virtual autopsy. In each of 32 fetuses included in the study, 32 anatomical structures were assessed, after termination of pregnancy in the second trimester. All cases were evaluated by prenatal ultrasonography, virtual autopsy and classic autopsy, and then divided into four groups: Cerebral Group, Cardiac Group, Renal Group and Other Group (miscellaneous group). The concordance of virtual autopsy with classic autopsy was calculated overall and for each group and each structural item. Also, the concordance between the two methods was assessed using a diagnostic error score (DgE_score), calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the number of malformations detected by classic autopsy per case (CA score) and the number of malformations detected at virtual autopsy per case (VA score). Overall virtual autopsy demonstrated a diagnostic sensitivity (Se) compared to classic autopsy of 67.33% [95% CI 57.28-76.33], with a specificity (Sp) of 98.37% [95% CI 97.33-99.09], a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.93% [95% CI 71.95-89.52], a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.49% [95% CI 95.11-97.57] achieving a diagnostic accuracy of 95.31% [95% CI 93.83-96.52]. Overall, no statistic significant correlation was demonstrated between DgE_score and the gestational age of the fetuses or between DgE_score and the weight of the fetuses, but a significant correlation was revealed between the virtual autopsy and classic autopsy score. The diagnostic utility of virtual autopsy using pm-MRI at 3 T as compared to classic autopsy for each category of termination of pregnancy revealed in the Cerebral Group a Se of 80.00% [95% CI 28.36-99.49], with a 96.30% [95% CI 81.03-99.91], a PPV of 80.00% [95% CI 35.75-96.64] a NPV of 96.30% [95% CI 81.81-99.34], with a diagnostic accuracy of 93.75% [95% CI 79.19% to 99.23] and a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.76 [95% CI 0.4494-1.0765]; in the Renal Group a Se and Sp of 100%, but in the Cardiac Group the Se was only 60.00% [95% CI 26.24-87.84], Sp 75% [95% CI 34.91-96.81], the PPV 75.00% [95% CI 44.92-91.69], NPV 60% [95% CI 38.87-77.96], with a diagnostic accuracy of 66.67% [95% CI 40.99-86.66] and a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.32 [95% CI -0.07-0.76]. The results support virtual autopsy using pm-MRI at 3T as a reliable alternative to classic autopsy for the non-forensic analysis of second trimester fetuses. Analyzing the diagnostic utility of virtual autopsy using pm-MRI at 3 T for the confirmation of prenatal ultrasound findings in second trimester fetuses as compared to classic autopsy, the best results were obtained in the Cerebral and Renal Group. Reserved results were found in the Cardiac Group. Therefore, for the pregnancies with termination of pregnancy for cerebral or renal abnormalities, virtual autopsy by pm-MRI at 3T can be taken into consideration as a first-line investigation to confirm the prenatal findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34843527
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260357
pii: PONE-D-21-09123
pmc: PMC8629304
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0260357Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36(3):359-60
pubmed: 26467021
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Mar;9(3):145-7
pubmed: 9165676
Prenat Diagn. 2019 Jun;39(7):505-518
pubmed: 30980413
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Jan;40(1):28-37
pubmed: 31525275
Prenat Diagn. 2010 Aug;30(8):713-8
pubmed: 20661883
Clin Radiol. 2015 Aug;70(8):872-80
pubmed: 26050535
Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2009 May-Jun;12(3):217-21
pubmed: 19021454
J Perinat Med. 2018 Feb 23;46(2):175-181
pubmed: 28841576
Eur Radiol. 2017 Aug;27(8):3542-3553
pubmed: 28116518
Lancet. 2013 Jul 20;382(9888):223-33
pubmed: 23683720
Can J Neurol Sci. 2016 Sep;43(5):611-8
pubmed: 27670206
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;223(4):493-515
pubmed: 32376319
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Apr;202(4):W325-34
pubmed: 24660730
J Clin Pathol. 2003 Jul;56(7):537-41
pubmed: 12835301
Lancet. 2009 Aug 8;374(9688):467-75
pubmed: 19665645
Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Apr;45(4):491-500
pubmed: 25274468
J Perinatol. 2006 Apr;26(4):224-9
pubmed: 16541112
Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Apr;45(4):549-55
pubmed: 25828357
Prenat Diagn. 2014 Mar;34(3):223-9
pubmed: 24243492
BJOG. 2003 Apr;110(4):378-82
pubmed: 12699799
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Jun;22(3):167-175
pubmed: 28325580
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Mar;84(3):474-481
pubmed: 25533719
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug;225(2):189.e1-189.e30
pubmed: 33662361
Prenat Diagn. 2007 May;27(5):457-62
pubmed: 17335106
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Emerg Med J. 2005 Mar;22(3):180-1
pubmed: 15735264
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Apr;33(4):307-12
pubmed: 23457031
BMC Med Imaging. 2016 Apr 27;16:34
pubmed: 27121379