Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Paediatric
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

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

References

  1. Shojania KG, Burton EC (2008) The vanishing nonforensic autopsy. N Engl J Med 358:873–875

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sieswerda-Hoogendoorn T, van Rijn RR (2010) Current techniques in postmortem imaging with specific attention to paediatric applications. Pediatr Radiol 40:141–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 118:1–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 39:659–665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 156:23–30

    Google Scholar 

  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 33:307–312

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 379:136–142

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 127:639–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 57:778–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 382:223–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weustink AC, Hunink MG, van Dijke CF et al (2009) Minimally-invasive autopsy: an alternative to conventional autopsy? Radiology 250:897–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 81:1667–1675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 11:120

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilson EB (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 22:209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 23:1711–1719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:493–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Arthurs OJ, Taylor AM, Sebire NJ (2015) Indications, advantages and limitations of perinatal post mortem imaging in clinical practice. Pediatr Radiol 45:491–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2876–2884

  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 129:1113–1120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gorincour G, Sarda-Quarello L, Laurent PE, Brough A, Rutty GN (2015) The future of pediatric and perinatal postmortem imaging. Pediatr Radiol 45:509–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 3:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 39:679–684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 3:12–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 3:120–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 40:437–444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 374:467–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lombardi CM, Zambelli V, Botta G et al (2014) Postmortem micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) of small fetuses and hearts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:600–609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Owen J. Arthurs, Anna Guy, Thomas S. Jacques, W. K. ‘Kling’ Chong, Roxanna Gunny, Dawn Saunders, Oystein E. Olsen, Catherine M. Owens, Lyn S. Chitty & Neil J. Sebire

  2. Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK

    Owen J. Arthurs, Thomas S. Jacques & Neil J. Sebire

  3. Perinatal Neurology and Neonatology, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Sudhin Thayyil

  4. Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, UCL Institute of Child health, London, UK

    Angie Wade

  5. Cardiorespiratory Division, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Rod Jones, Wendy Norman, Catherine M. Owens & Andrew M. Taylor

  6. Centre for Cardiovascular Imaging, UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science, London, UK

    Rod Jones, Wendy Norman, Catherine M. Owens & Andrew M. Taylor

  7. University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Rosemary Scott & Lyn S. Chitty

  8. Academic Neonatology, UCL Institute for Women’s Health, London, UK

    Nicola J. Robertson

  9. University of Sheffield Academic Unit of Child Health, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Room C4, Stephenson Wing, Western Bank, S10 2TH, Sheffield, UK

    Amaka C. Offiah

  10. Department of Radiology, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

    Amaka C. Offiah

  11. Genetics and Genomic Medicine, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK

    Lyn S. Chitty

Authors
  1. Owen J. Arthurs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Guy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sudhin Thayyil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angie Wade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rod Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wendy Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rosemary Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicola J. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Thomas S. Jacques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. W. K. ‘Kling’ Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Roxanna Gunny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Dawn Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Oystein E. Olsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Catherine M. Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Amaka C. Offiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Lyn S. Chitty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Andrew M. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Neil J. Sebire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Autopsy Study (MaRIAS) Collaborative Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Owen J. Arthurs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arthurs, O.J., Guy, A., Thayyil, S. et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance for perinatal and paediatric post-mortem imaging: CT versus MRI. Eur Radiol 26, 2327–2336 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4057-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4057-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation