D Cimadomo, M Taggi, V Cimadomo, F Innocenti, L Albricci, S Colamaria, C Argento, M Giuliani, S Ferrero, A Borini, M Guido, M R Campitiello, F M Ubaldi, A Capalbo, L Rienzi, G Gennarelli, A Vaiarelli
C Winsloe, J Elhindi, M C Vieira, S Relph, C G Arcus, K Coxon, A Briley, M Johnson, L M Page, A Shennan, N Marlow, C Lees, D A Lawlor, A Khalil, J Sandall, A Copas, D Pasupathy
{"title":"Perinatal outcomes after selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for small-for-gestational age: prospective cohort study nested within DESiGN randomized controlled trial.","authors":"C Winsloe, J Elhindi, M C Vieira, S Relph, C G Arcus, K Coxon, A Briley, M Johnson, L M Page, A Shennan, N Marlow, C Lees, D A Lawlor, A Khalil, J Sandall, A Copas, D Pasupathy","doi":"10.1002/uog.29130","DOIUrl":"10.1002/uog.29130","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In screening for small-for-gestational age (SGA) using third-trimester antenatal ultrasound, there are concerns about the low detection rates and potential for harm caused by both false-negative and false-positive screening results. Using a selective third-trimester ultrasound screening program, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes among cases with (i) false-negative compared with true-positive SGA diagnosis and (ii) false-positive compared with true-negative SGA diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective cohort study was nested within the UK-based DESiGN trial, a prospective multicenter cohort study of singleton pregnancies without antenatally detected fetal anomalies, born at > 24 + 0 to < 43 + 0 weeks' gestation. We included women recruited to the baseline period, or control arm, of the trial who were not exposed to the Growth Assessment Protocol intervention and whose birth outcomes were known. Stillbirth and major neonatal morbidity were the two primary outcomes. Minor neonatal morbidity was considered a secondary outcome. Suspected SGA was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile, based on the Hadlock formula and fetal growth charts. Similarly, SGA at birth was defined as birth weight (BW) < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile, based on UK population references. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics and perinatal outcomes were reported according to whether SGA was suspected antenatally or not. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to quantify the differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between the screening results (false negative vs true positive and false positive vs true negative).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 165 321 pregnancies were included in the analysis. Fetuses with a false-negative SGA screening result, compared to those with a true-positive result, were at a significantly higher risk of stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.31)), but at lower risk of major (aOR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91)) and minor (aOR, 0.56, (95% CI, 0.54-0.59)) neonatal morbidity. Compared with a true-negative screening result, a false-positive result was associated with a lower BW percentile (median, 18.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 13.3-26.9) vs 49.9 (IQR, 30.3-71.7)). A false-positive result was also associated with a significantly increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.88-2.68)) and minor neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.51-1.71)), but not major neonatal morbidity (aOR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In selective third-trimester ultrasound screening for SGA, both false-negative and false-positive results were associated with a significantly higher risk of stillbirth, when compared with true-positive and true-negative results, respectively. Improved SGA detection is needed to address false-negative results. It should be acknowledged that c","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"30-38"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693816/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142717174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S Adjahou, A Syngelaki, M Nanda, D Papavasileiou, R Akolekar, K H Nicolaides
{"title":"Routine 36-week scan: prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonate.","authors":"S Adjahou, A Syngelaki, M Nanda, D Papavasileiou, R Akolekar, K H Nicolaides","doi":"10.1002/uog.29134","DOIUrl":"10.1002/uog.29134","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>First, to compare the predictive performance of routine ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 and 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation for delivery of a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonate. Second, to compare the predictive performance of EFW at 36 weeks' gestation for SGA vs fetal growth restriction (FGR) at birth. Third, to compare the predictive performance for delivery of a SGA neonate of EFW < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile vs a model combining maternal demographic characteristics and elements of medical history with EFW.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in 21 676 women with a singleton pregnancy who had undergone routine ultrasound examination at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks' gestation and 107 875 women with a singleton pregnancy who had undergone routine ultrasound examination at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks. Measurements of fetal head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length were used to calculate EFW according to the Hadlock formula and this was expressed as a percentile according to the Fetal Medicine Foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts. The same charts were used to diagnose SGA neonates with birth weight < 10<sup>th</sup> or < 3<sup>rd</sup> percentile. FGR was defined as birth weight < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile in addition to Doppler anomalies. For each gestational-age window at screening, the screen-positive rate and detection rate were calculated at different EFW cut-offs between the 10<sup>th</sup> and 50<sup>th</sup> percentiles for predicting the delivery of a SGA neonate with birth weight < 10<sup>th</sup> or < 3<sup>rd</sup> percentile, either within 2 weeks or at any time after assessment. The areas under the receiver-operating-characteristics curves (AUC) of screening for a SGA neonate by EFW at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks and at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The predictive performance of routine ultrasonographic examination during the third trimester for delivery of a SGA neonate is higher if: first, the scan is carried out at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation rather than at 31 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks; second, the outcome measure is birth weight < 3<sup>rd</sup> rather than < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile; third, the outcome measure is FGR rather than SGA; fourth, if delivery occurs within 2 weeks after assessment rather than at any time after assessment; and fifth, prediction is performed using a model that combines maternal demographic characteristics and elements of medical history with EFW rather than EFW < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile alone. At 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation, detection of ≥ 85% of SGA neonates with birth weight < 10<sup>th</sup> percentile born at any time after assessment necessitates the use of EFW < 40<sup>th</sup> percentile. Screening at this percentile cut-off predicted 95% and 98% of neonates with birth weight < 10<sup>th</su","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"20-29"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693828/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142717177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T Adu-Bredu, R A Aryananda, S Mathewlynn, S L Collins
{"title":"Exploring pathophysiological insights to improve diagnostic utility of ultrasound markers for distinguishing placenta accreta spectrum from uterine-scar dehiscence.","authors":"T Adu-Bredu, R A Aryananda, S Mathewlynn, S L Collins","doi":"10.1002/uog.29144","DOIUrl":"10.1002/uog.29144","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Accurate differentiation between placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and uterine-scar dehiscence with underlying non-adherent placenta is often challenging, even for PAS experts, both prenatally and intraoperatively. We investigated the use of standardized two-dimensional grayscale ultrasound and Doppler imaging markers in differentiating between these closely related, yet distinct, conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two centers with specialized PAS services. All consecutive women with at least one previous Cesarean delivery and a current pregnancy with a low-lying placenta or placenta previa, for whom detailed prenatal ultrasound, management and outcome information was available for review by the research team, were included. PAS was diagnosed clinically by the abnormal adherence of the placenta to the uterus. The PAS cases were classified using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical classification. Grade 1 was considered low-grade PAS while Grades 2 and 3 were classified as high-grade PAS. The ultrasound markers were categorized according to their underlying pathophysiology, including lower uterine segment (LUS) remodeling, uteroplacental vascular remodeling and serosal hypervascularity. The combined ultrasound features were analyzed among the PAS and non-PAS subgroups using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Additionally, receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined ultrasound features in differentiating between high-grade PAS and uterine-scar dehiscence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 150 cases retrieved, six cases were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria. The included 144 cases comprised 89 cases of PAS, 23 cases of uterine-scar dehiscence and 32 cases of uncomplicated low-lying placenta or placenta previa. Among the PAS cases, there were 16 cases of low-grade PAS and 73 of high-grade PAS. Combined signs of LUS remodeling were present in most cases of uterine-scar dehiscence (20/23 (87.0%)) and high-grade PAS (67/73 (91.8%)) (P = 0.444), while these signs were absent in cases of low-grade PAS (0/16) and uncomplicated low-lying placenta or placenta previa (0/32). A subgroup analysis of cases with all LUS remodeling features present revealed that the combined signs of serosal hypervascularity (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 41.2 (95% CI, 7.5-225.3)) and uteroplacental vascular remodeling (aOR, 116.0 (95% CI, 15.3-878.3)) were significantly associated with high-grade PAS. Diagnostic accuracy testing within this subgroup revealed an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-0.99), sensitivity of 89.6% (95% CI, 79.7-95.7%) and specificity of 90.0% (95% CI, 68.3-98.8%) for the diagnosis of high-grade PAS when all signs of uteroplacental vascular remodeling were prese","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"85-93"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693827/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142830074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
N Vilk Ayalon, A Haboosheh, S M Cohen, D V Valsky, S Yagel
{"title":"Prenatal diagnosis of fetal neck mass.","authors":"N Vilk Ayalon, A Haboosheh, S M Cohen, D V Valsky, S Yagel","doi":"10.1002/uog.27681","DOIUrl":"10.1002/uog.27681","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":23454,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"130-132"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140946064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}