Frequency and cause of disagreements in diagnoses for fetuses referred for ventriculomegaly.

PURPOSE To prospectively assess the frequency and cause of disagreements in diagnoses at ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for fetuses referred for ventriculomegaly (VM). MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred ninety-five women, aged 18-44 years, with 200 fetal referrals for VM, were recruited in a prospective IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. Written informed consent was obtained. US scans were prospectively interpreted by three obstetric radiologists and MR examinations were read by one obstetric radiologist and three pediatric neuroradiologists. Final diagnosis was reached by consensus (198 US, 198 MR, and 196 US-MR comparisons). Gestational age, ventricular size, types of disagreements, and reasons for disagreements were recorded. Interreader agreement was assessed with kappa statistics. Ventricular diameter, gestational age, and confidence scores were analyzed by using mixed-model analysis of variance, accounting for correlation within reader and fetus. RESULTS There was prospective agreement on 118 (60%) of 198 US and 104 (53%) of 198 MR readings. Consensus was more likely when the final diagnosis was isolated VM (83 of 104, 80% at US; 82 of 109, 75% at MR) than when the final diagnosis included other anomalies as well (14 of 63, 22% at US; seven of 68, 10% at MR; P < .001). There was disagreement on 19 (10%) of 196 and 31 (16%) of 196 fetuses about the presence of VM at US and MR, respectively, and on 29 (15%) of 198 and 39 (20%) of 198 fetuses regarding the presence of major findings at US and MR, respectively. Reasons for discrepancies in reporting major findings included errors of observation, lack of real-time US scanning, lack of neuroradiology experience, as well as modality differences in helping depict abnormalities. CONCLUSION Of radiologists who read high-risk obstetric US and fetal MR images for VM, there is considerable variability in central nervous system diagnosis.

[1]  H. Kraemer,et al.  Agreement Statistics: Kappa Coefficients in Medical Research , 2005 .

[2]  L. Valentin,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of three‐dimensional gray‐scale and power Doppler ultrasound examinations of the cervix in pregnant women , 2005, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[3]  A. Barkovich,et al.  Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Fetuses Referred for Sonographically Suspected Abnormalities of the Corpus Callosum , 2005, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[4]  D. H. Dinh,et al.  The use of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of fetal intracranial anomalies , 1990, Childs Nervous System.

[5]  James P Borgstede,et al.  RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[6]  Deborah Levine,et al.  Fast MR imaging of fetal central nervous system abnormalities. , 2003, Radiology.

[7]  A. Hubbard Ultrafast fetal MRI and prenatal diagnosis. , 2003, Seminars in pediatric surgery.

[8]  Diane M Twickler,et al.  Second-opinion magnetic resonance imaging for suspected fetal central nervous system abnormalities. , 2001, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  J. Hung,et al.  A comparative MR and pathological study on fetal CNS disorders , 2001, Child’s Nervous System.

[10]  R. Smith-Bindman,et al.  The variability in the interpretation of prenatal diagnostic ultrasound , 2001, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[11]  A J Barkovich,et al.  Fast MR imaging of fetal CNS anomalies in utero. , 2000, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[12]  H. Shinmoto,et al.  MR imaging of non-CNS fetal abnormalities: a pictorial essay. , 2000, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[13]  R. Edelman,et al.  Central nervous system abnormalities assessed with prenatal magnetic resonance imaging. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  M. Szklo,et al.  Epidemiology: Beyond the Basics , 1999 .

[15]  R. Vanninen,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging supplements ultrasonographic imaging of the posterior fossa, pharynx and neck in malformed fetuses , 1999, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[16]  R. Edelman,et al.  Fetal CNS anomalies revealed on ultrafast MR imaging. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  A. Hubbard,et al.  Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging enhances fetal diagnosis. , 1998, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[18]  P. Sonigo,et al.  MR imaging of fetal cerebral anomalies , 1998, Pediatric Radiology.

[19]  Wei Li,et al.  Fetal central nervous system anomalies: MR imaging augments sonographic diagnosis. , 1997, Radiology.

[20]  A. Borrell,et al.  Interobserver variability of midtrimester fetal nuchal thickness. , 1997, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[21]  B. Bromley,et al.  Agenesis of the corpus callosum: prenatal detection usually is not possible before 22 weeks of gestation. , 1996, Radiology.

[22]  Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. , 1992, Radiology.

[24]  R. Goldstein,et al.  Effect of measurement errors on sonographic evaluation of ventriculomegaly. , 1991, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[25]  J. Cardoza,et al.  The dangling choroid plexus: a sonographic observation of value in excluding ventriculomegaly. , 1988, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  J. Valk,et al.  Classification of congenital abnormalities of the CNS. , 1988, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[27]  John A. Campbell Error and Variation in Diagnostic Radiology , 1968 .

[28]  W E CHAMBERLAIN,et al.  Tuberculosis case finding; a comparison of the effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. , 1947, Journal of the American Medical Association.