Cargando…

MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the standard ultrasound (US) estimated fetal weight (EFW) and MRI volume-derived methods for the midtrimester fetus. METHODS: Twenty-five paired US and MRI scans had the EFW calculated (gestational age [GA] range = 20–26 weeks). The intra- and interob...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matthew, Jacqueline, Skelton, Emily, Story, Lisa, Davidson, Alice, Knight, Caroline L., Gupta, Chandni, Pasupathy, Dharmintra, Rutherford, Mary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34818233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000519115
_version_ 1783605566896078848
author Matthew, Jacqueline
Skelton, Emily
Story, Lisa
Davidson, Alice
Knight, Caroline L.
Gupta, Chandni
Pasupathy, Dharmintra
Rutherford, Mary
author_facet Matthew, Jacqueline
Skelton, Emily
Story, Lisa
Davidson, Alice
Knight, Caroline L.
Gupta, Chandni
Pasupathy, Dharmintra
Rutherford, Mary
author_sort Matthew, Jacqueline
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the standard ultrasound (US) estimated fetal weight (EFW) and MRI volume-derived methods for the midtrimester fetus. METHODS: Twenty-five paired US and MRI scans had the EFW calculated (gestational age [GA] range = 20–26 weeks). The intra- and interobserver variability of each method was assessed (2 operators/modality). A small sub-analysis was performed on 5 fetuses who were delivered preterm (mean GA 29 (+3) weeks) and compared to the actual birthweight. RESULTS: Two MRI volumetry EFW formulae under-measured compared to US by −10.9% and −14.5% in the midpregnancy fetus (p < 0.001) but had excellent intra- and interobserver agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.998 and 0.993). In the preterm fetus, the mean relative difference (MRD) between the MRI volume-derived EFW (MRI-EFW) and actual expected birthweight (at the scan GA) was −13.7% (−159.0 g, 95% CI: −341.7 to 23.7 g) and −17.1% (−204.6 g, 95% CI: −380.4 to −28.8 g), for the 2 MRI formulae. The MRD was smaller for US at 5.3% (69.8 g, 95% CI: −34.3 to 173.9). CONCLUSIONS: MRI-EFW results should be interpreted with caution in midpregnancy. Despite excellent observer agreement with MRI volumetry, refinement of the EFW formula is needed in the second trimester, for the small and for the GA and preterm fetus to compensate for lower fetal densities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7614116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76141162023-01-27 MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study Matthew, Jacqueline Skelton, Emily Story, Lisa Davidson, Alice Knight, Caroline L. Gupta, Chandni Pasupathy, Dharmintra Rutherford, Mary Fetal Diagn Ther Article OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the standard ultrasound (US) estimated fetal weight (EFW) and MRI volume-derived methods for the midtrimester fetus. METHODS: Twenty-five paired US and MRI scans had the EFW calculated (gestational age [GA] range = 20–26 weeks). The intra- and interobserver variability of each method was assessed (2 operators/modality). A small sub-analysis was performed on 5 fetuses who were delivered preterm (mean GA 29 (+3) weeks) and compared to the actual birthweight. RESULTS: Two MRI volumetry EFW formulae under-measured compared to US by −10.9% and −14.5% in the midpregnancy fetus (p < 0.001) but had excellent intra- and interobserver agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.998 and 0.993). In the preterm fetus, the mean relative difference (MRD) between the MRI volume-derived EFW (MRI-EFW) and actual expected birthweight (at the scan GA) was −13.7% (−159.0 g, 95% CI: −341.7 to 23.7 g) and −17.1% (−204.6 g, 95% CI: −380.4 to −28.8 g), for the 2 MRI formulae. The MRD was smaller for US at 5.3% (69.8 g, 95% CI: −34.3 to 173.9). CONCLUSIONS: MRI-EFW results should be interpreted with caution in midpregnancy. Despite excellent observer agreement with MRI volumetry, refinement of the EFW formula is needed in the second trimester, for the small and for the GA and preterm fetus to compensate for lower fetal densities. 2021-01-01 2021-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7614116/ /pubmed/34818233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000519115 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) International license.
spellingShingle Article
Matthew, Jacqueline
Skelton, Emily
Story, Lisa
Davidson, Alice
Knight, Caroline L.
Gupta, Chandni
Pasupathy, Dharmintra
Rutherford, Mary
MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study
title MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study
title_full MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study
title_fullStr MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study
title_full_unstemmed MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study
title_short MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study
title_sort mri-derived fetal weight estimation in the midpregnancy fetus: a method comparison study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34818233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000519115
work_keys_str_mv AT matthewjacqueline mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT skeltonemily mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT storylisa mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT davidsonalice mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT knightcarolinel mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT guptachandni mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT pasupathydharmintra mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy
AT rutherfordmary mriderivedfetalweightestimationinthemidpregnancyfetusamethodcomparisonstudy