US and MR imaging findings to detect placental adhesion spectrum (PAS) in patients with placenta previa: a comparative systematic study
- 24 Downloads
To compare the performance US and MR in identifying placental adhesion spectrum (PAS) in placenta previa (PP) and to establish a potential method of image interpretation.
US and MR examinations of 51 patients with PP were selected. The presence of imaging signs commonly used to detect PAS was assessed. Penalized logistic regression was performed considering histology as standard of reference; only signs statistically significant (p < 0.05) were considered for ROC and multivariate analysis. The probability of PAS according to the presence of US and/or MR signs was then assessed.
At univariate analysis, loss of retroplacental clear space, myometrial thinning (MT) and placenta lacunar spaces on US, intraplacental dark bands (IDBs), focal interruption of myometrial border (FIMB) and abnormal vascularity (AV) on MR were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Three diagnostic methods for PAS were then developed for both US and MR when at least one (Method 1), two (Method 2) or three (Method 3) imaging signs occurred, respectively. Method 2 for MR showed a significantly (p < 0.05) higher accuracy (91%) compared to the other methods. When MR IDBs and AV as well as IDBs and FIMB were present in combination with US MT the probability of PAS increased from 75 to 90% and from 80 to 91%, respectively.
MR demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy than US to detect PAS. However, since the combination of MR and US signs could improve the probability to detect PAS, a complementary diagnostic role of these techniques could be considered.
KeywordsUltrasound (US) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Placenta previa Placental adhesion spectrum (PAS) Diagnostic accuracy
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 3.Pagani G, Cali G, Acharya G, Trisch IT, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Familiari A, Buca D, Manzoli L, Flacco ME, Fanfani F, Liberati M, Scambia G, D’antonio F. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in detecting the severity of abnormally invasive placentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97:25–37. Doi: 10.1111/aogs.13238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Algebally AM, Yousef RR, Badr SS, AlObeidly A, Szmigielski W, AlIbrahim AA. The value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnostics and prediction of morbidity in cases of placenta previa with abnormal placentation Pol J Radiol 2014; 79:406–16.Google Scholar
- 7.Kumar I, V. A. Invasive placental disorders: a prospective US and MRI comparative analysis. Acta Radiol 2017; 58:12–128.Google Scholar
- 8.Meng X, X. L. Comparing the diagnostic value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for placenta accreta: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39:1958–65.Google Scholar
- 9.Rezk MA, S. M. Grey-scale and colour Doppler ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for the prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29:218–23Google Scholar
- 14.Einerson BD, R. C. Magnetic resonance imaging is often misleading when used as an adjunct to ultrasound in the management of placenta accreta spectrum disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218:618.e1–618.e7.Google Scholar
- 16.Chou MM, H. E. Prenatal diagnosis of placenta previa/accreta with color Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992; 2:293–6.Google Scholar
- 17.Collins SL, A. A.-R. Proposal for standardized ultrasound descriptors of abnormally invasive placenta (AIP). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47:271–5.Google Scholar
- 18.Finberg HJ, W. J. Placenta accreta: prospective sonographic diagnosis in patients with placenta previa and prior cesarean section. J Ultrasound Med 1992;11:333–43.Google Scholar
- 19.Jauniaux E, C. S. Placenta accreta spectrum: pathophysiology and evidence-based anatomy for prenatal ultrasound imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018: 218:75–87.Google Scholar
- 20.Maurea S, Romeo V, Mainenti PP, Ginocchio MI, Frauenfelder G, Verde F, Liuzzi R, D’Armiento M, Sarno L, Morlando M, Petretta M, Martinelli P, Brunetti A. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing placental adhesion disorder in patients with placenta previa: Correlation with histological findings. Eur J Radiol 2018;106:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Firth, D. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80:27-38; Heinze, G. and Schemper, M. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:2409–19.Google Scholar
- 23.Williams R. Analyzing Rare Events with Logistic Regression. University of Notre Dame https://www3.nd.edu/rwilliam/stats3/rareevents.pdf, last revised April 8, 2018; last accessed December 12, 2018
- 24.Marsoosi V, G. F. Development of a scoring system for prediction of placenta accreta and determine the accuracy of its results. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1531119.
- 25.Rac, M. W. Ultrasound predictors of placental invasion: the Placenta Accreta Index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212:343.e1-7.Google Scholar
- 27.Valentini AL, Gui B, Ninivaggi V, Miccò M, Giuliani M, Russo L, Marini MG,Tintoni M, Cavaliere AF, Bonomo L. The morbidly adherent placenta: when and what association of signs can improve MRI diagnosis? Our experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 2017;23:180–186. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2017.16275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Chen X, Shan R, Zhao L, et al. Invasive placenta previa: placental bulge with distorted uterine outline and uterine serosal hypervascularity at 1.5 T MRI - useful features for differentiating placenta percreta from placenta accreta. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:708–717.Google Scholar
- 31.Goergen SK, Posma E, Wrede D, Collett J, Pyman J, Alibrahim E, Keene J, Dobrotwir A. Interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance of individual MRI criteria for diagnosis of placental adhesion disorders. Clin Radiol 2018;73:908.e1–908.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.05.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Chen X, Shan R, Zhao L, et al. Invasive placenta previa: placental bulge with distorted uterine outline and uterine serosal hypervascularity at 1.5 T MRI - useful features for differentiating placenta percreta from placenta accreta. Eur Radiol 2018;28:708–717.Google Scholar
- 33.Knight JC Chen X, Shan R, Zhao L, et al. Invasive placenta previa: placental bulge with distorted uterine outline and uterine serosal hypervascularity at 1.5 T MRI - useful features for differentiating placenta percreta from placenta accreta. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:708–717Google Scholar