Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 2327–2336 | Cite as

Comparison of diagnostic performance for perinatal and paediatric post-mortem imaging: CT versus MRI

  • Owen J. Arthurs
  • Anna Guy
  • Sudhin Thayyil
  • Angie Wade
  • Rod Jones
  • Wendy Norman
  • Rosemary Scott
  • Nicola J. Robertson
  • Thomas S. Jacques
  • W. K. ‘Kling’ Chong
  • Roxanna Gunny
  • Dawn Saunders
  • Oystein E. Olsen
  • Catherine M. Owens
  • Amaka C. Offiah
  • Lyn S. Chitty
  • Andrew M. Taylor
  • Neil J. Sebire
  • for the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Autopsy Study (MaRIAS) Collaborative Group
Paediatric

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic yield of whole-body post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT) imaging to post-mortem magnetic resonance (PMMR) imaging in a prospective study of fetuses and children.

Methods

We compared PMCT and PMMR to conventional autopsy as the gold standard for the detection of (a) major pathological abnormalities related to the cause of death and (b) all diagnostic findings in five different body organ systems.

Results

Eighty two cases (53 fetuses and 29 children) underwent PMCT and PMMR prior to autopsy, at which 55 major abnormalities were identified. Significantly more PMCT than PMMR examinations were non-diagnostic (18/82 vs. 4/82; 21.9 % vs. 4.9 %, diff 17.1 % (95 % CI 6.7, 27.6; p < 0.05)). PMMR gave an accurate diagnosis in 24/55 (43.64 %; 95 % CI 31.37, 56.73 %) compared to 18/55 PMCT (32.73 %; 95 % CI 21.81, 45.90). PMCT was particularly poor in fetuses <24 weeks, with 28.6 % (8.1, 46.4 %) more non-diagnostic scans. Where both PMCT and PMMR were diagnostic, PMMR gave slightly higher diagnostic accuracy than PMCT (62.8 % vs. 59.4 %).

Conclusion

Unenhanced PMCT has limited value in detection of major pathology primarily because of poor-quality, non-diagnostic fetal images. On this basis, PMMR should be the modality of choice for non-invasive PM imaging in fetuses and children.

Key Points

Overall 17.1 % more PMCT examinations than PMMR were non-diagnostic

28.6 % more PMCT were non-diagnostic than PMMR in fetuses <24 weeks

PMMR detected almost a third more pathological abnormalities than PMCT

PMMR gave slightly higher diagnostic accuracy when both were diagnostic

Keywords

Post-mortem Fetus CT MRI Perinatal 

Abbreviations

LIA

less invasive autopsy (no incision is made)

MIA

minimally invasive autopsy (incision or biopsy is made, but no full autopsy)

PM

post-mortem

PMCT

post-mortem computed tomography

PMMR

post-mortem magnetic resonance

SUDI

sudden unexpected death in infancy

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andrew M. Taylor. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This is an independent report commissioned and funded by the Policy Research Programme in the Department of Health (0550004). This work was undertaken at GOSH/ICH, UCLH/ UCL who received a proportion of funding from the UK Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. NJS and LC are supported by NIHR Senior Investigator awards. AMT is supported by an NIHR Senior Research fellow award, NJS is supported by a NIHR Senior Investigator award, and OA and ST are supported by an NIHR Clinician Scientist fellowship awards. LSC, NJS and AMT receive funding from the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity and ACO from The Sheffield Children’s Hospital Charity. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise (AW). Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in Thayyil et al., Lancet 2013 [6], and Arthurs OJ et al., European Radiology 2014. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic study, multicenter study. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01417962

MaRIAS (Magnetic Resonance Imaging Autopsy Study) Collaborative Group

Ms Shea Addison (Research Assistant, UCL), Dr Michael Ashworth (Consultant in Paediatric Pathology, GOSH) Dr Alan Bainbridge (MR Physicist, UCL), Dr Jocelyn Brookes (Consultant in Interventional Radiology, UCH), Prof Lyn Chitty (Professor of Genetics and Fetal Medicine, UCLH and GOSH), Dr WK ‘Kling’ Chong (Consultant in Paediatric Neuroradiology, GOSH), Dr Roxana Gunny (Consultant in Paediatric Neuroradiology, GOSH), Dr Tom Jacques (Consultant in Paediatric Neuropathology, GOSH), Mr Rod Jones (Research MR radiographer, UCL), Dr Mark Lythgoe (Director, Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, UCL), Dr Marion Malone (Consultant in Paediatric pathology, GOSH), Wendy Norman (Research MR radiographer, UCL), Dr Oystein Olsen (Consultant in Paediatric Chest and Abdomen Imaging, GOSH), Dr Catherine M Owens (Consultant in Paediatric Chest and Abdomen Imaging, GOSH), Dr Amaka C Offiah (Reader in Paediatric Musculoskeletal Imaging, University of Sheffield), Dr Nicola Robertson (Professor of Perinatal Neuroscience, UCH), Dr Tony Risdon (Consultant in Paediatric Forensic Pathology, GOSH), Prof Neil Sebire (Professor of Perinatal and Paediatric Developmental Pathology, GOSH), Dr Rosemary Scott (Consultant in Perinatal pathology, UCH), Dr Dawn Saunders (Consultant in Paediatric Neuroradiology, GOSH), Dr Silvia Schievano (Senior Research Fellow in Medical Engineering, UCL), Ms Angie Scales (Family liaison sister, GOSH), Prof Andrew Taylor (Chief Investigator; Professor of Cardiovascular Imaging, UCL), Sudhin Thayyil (Clinical Reader in Neonatology, Imperial), Angie Wade (Professor of Medical Statistics, UCL).

References

  1. 1.
    Shojania KG, Burton EC (2008) The vanishing nonforensic autopsy. N Engl J Med 358:873–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sieswerda-Hoogendoorn T, van Rijn RR (2010) Current techniques in postmortem imaging with specific attention to paediatric applications. Pediatr Radiol 40:141–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cantwell R, Clutton-Brock T, Cooper G et al (2011) Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–2008. The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. BJOG 118:1–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cannie M, Votino C, Moerman P et al (2012) Acceptance, reliability and confidence of diagnosis of fetal and neonatal virtuopsy compared with conventional autopsy: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:659–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wichmann D, Obbelode F, Vogel H et al (2012) Virtual autopsy as an alternative to traditional medical autopsy in the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 156:23–30Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ben-Sasi K, Chitty LS, Franck LS, Thayyil S, Judge-Kronis L, Taylor AM et al (2013) Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: healthcare professionals’ views and implications for practice. Prenat Diagn 33:307–312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roberts IS, Benamore RE, Benbow EW et al (2012) Post-mortem imaging as an alternative to autopsy in the diagnosis of adult deaths: a validation study. Lancet 379:136–142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruguier C, Mosimann PJ, Vaucher P, Uské A, Doenz F, Jackowski C et al (2013) Multi-phase postmortem CT angiography: recognizing technique-related artefacts and pitfalls. Int J Legal Med 127:639–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruder TD, Hatch GM, Ebert LC, Flach PM, Ross S, Ampanozi G et al (2012) Whole body postmortem magnetic resonance angiography. J Forensic Sci 57:778–782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS, for the MARIAS collaborative group et al (2013) Post-mortem MRI versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: aprospective validation study. Lancet 382:223–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weustink AC, Hunink MG, van Dijke CF et al (2009) Minimally-invasive autopsy: an alternative to conventional autopsy? Radiology 250:897–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O'Donoghue K, O'Regan KN, Sheridan CP, O'Connor OJ, Benson J, McWilliams S et al (2012) Investigation of the role of computed tomography as an adjunct to autopsy in the evaluation of stillbirth. Eur J Radiol 81:1667–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS et al (2011) Post mortem magnetic resonance imaging in the fetus, infant and child: a comparative study with conventional autopsy (MaRIAS protocol). BMC Pediatr 11:120CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson EB (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 22:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Proisy M, Marchand AJ, Loget P, Bouvet R, Roussey M, Pelé F et al (2013) Whole-body post-mortem computed tomography compared with autopsy in the investigation of unexpected death in infants and children. Eur Radiol 23:1711–1719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oyake Y, Aoki T, Shiotani S, Kohno M, Ohashi N, Akutsu H et al (2006) Postmortem computed tomography for detecting causes of sudden death in infants and children: retrospective review of cases. Radiat Med 24:493–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arthurs OJ, Taylor AM, Sebire NJ (2015) Indications, advantages and limitations of perinatal post mortem imaging in clinical practice. Pediatr Radiol 45:491–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arthurs OJ, Thayyil S, Olsen OE, Addison S, Wade A, Jones R, Norman W, Scott RJ, Robertson NJ, Taylor AM, Chitty LS, Sebire NJ, Owens CM (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem MRI for thoracic abnormalities in fetuses and children. Magnetic resonance imaging autopsy study (MaRIAS) collaborative group. Eur Radiol 24(11):2876–2884Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arthurs OJ, Guy A, Kiho L, Sebire NJ (2015) Ventilated post-mortem computed tomography in children: feasibility and initial experience. Int J Legal Med 129:1113–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarda-Quarello L, Bartoli C, Laurent P-E, Torrents J, Piercecchi-Marti MD, Sigaudy S et al (2015) Whole body perinatal postmortem CT angiography. Diagn Interv Imaging. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2014.11.002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gorincour G, Sarda-Quarello L, Laurent PE, Brough A, Rutty GN (2015) The future of pediatric and perinatal postmortem imaging. Pediatr Radiol 45:509–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarda-Quarello L, Tuchtan L, Torrents J, Piercecchi-Marti M-D, Bartoli C, Laurent P-E et al (2015) Perinatal death: is there a place for post-mortem angio-CT? J Forensic Radiol Imaging 3:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Votino C, Cannie M, Segers V, Dobrescu O, Dessy H, Gallo V et al (2012) Virtual autopsy by computed tomographic angiography of the fetal heart: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:679–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prodhomme O, Baud C, Saguintaah M, Béchard-Sevette N, Bolivar J, David S et al (2015) Principles of fetal postmortem ultrasound: a personal review. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 3:12–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prodhomme O, Baud C, Saguintaah M, Béchard-Sevette N, Bolivar J, David S et al (2015) Comparison of postmortem ultrasound and X-ray with autopsy in fetal death: retrospective study of 169 cases. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 3:120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Votino C, Jani J, Verhoye M, Bessieres B, Fierens Y, Segers V et al (2012) Postmortem examination of human fetal hearts at or below 20 weeks' gestation: a comparison of high-field MRI at 9.4 T with lower-field MRI magnets and stereomicroscopic autopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40:437–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thayyil S, Cleary JO, Sebire NJ et al (2009) Post-mortem examination of human fetuses: a comparison of whole-body high-field MRI at 9.4T with conventional MRI and invasive autopsy. Lancet 374:467–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lombardi CM, Zambelli V, Botta G et al (2014) Postmortem micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) of small fetuses and hearts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:600–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen J. Arthurs
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Guy
    • 1
  • Sudhin Thayyil
    • 3
  • Angie Wade
    • 4
  • Rod Jones
    • 5
    • 6
  • Wendy Norman
    • 5
    • 6
  • Rosemary Scott
    • 7
  • Nicola J. Robertson
    • 8
  • Thomas S. Jacques
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. K. ‘Kling’ Chong
    • 1
  • Roxanna Gunny
    • 1
  • Dawn Saunders
    • 1
  • Oystein E. Olsen
    • 1
  • Catherine M. Owens
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  • Amaka C. Offiah
    • 9
    • 10
  • Lyn S. Chitty
    • 1
    • 7
    • 11
  • Andrew M. Taylor
    • 5
    • 6
  • Neil J. Sebire
    • 1
    • 2
  • for the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Autopsy Study (MaRIAS) Collaborative Group
  1. 1.Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of Child Health, UCLLondonUK
  3. 3.Perinatal Neurology and NeonatologyImperial College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics UnitUCL Institute of Child healthLondonUK
  5. 5.Cardiorespiratory DivisionGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  6. 6.Centre for Cardiovascular ImagingUCL Institute of Cardiovascular ScienceLondonUK
  7. 7.University College London Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  8. 8.Academic NeonatologyUCL Institute for Women’s HealthLondonUK
  9. 9.University of Sheffield Academic Unit of Child Health, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldUK
  10. 10.Department of RadiologySheffield Children’s NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldUK
  11. 11.Genetics and Genomic MedicineUCL Institute of Child HealthLondonUK

Personalised recommendations