Fetal corpus callosum abnormalities: Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging role

Moradi, Behnaz; Taherian, Reza; Tahmasebpour, Ahmad‐Reza; Taheri, Morteza Sanei; Kazemi, Mohammad Ali; Pak, Neda; Shirazi, Mahboobeh; Radmanesh, Alireza; Öztekin, Özgür; Ahmadi, Mehran Arab

doi:10.1002/jcu.23212

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These measurements are pivotal in evaluating brain development and connectivity, as they contribute significantly to interhemispheric communication and cortical integration. 28,29 The width of the LCC and PCC provides valuable information about the subarachnoid space and its relationship to brain structures, providing information about the development and maturation of the brain as a whole. 30 The insula and Note: Data are presented as median with range or count (%) as appropriate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among these ultrasound measurements are the assessment of the CC in the midsagittal plane, the insular and parieto‐occipital fissure depths and LCC and PCC widths in the axial plane. These measurements are pivotal in evaluating brain development and connectivity, as they contribute significantly to interhemispheric communication and cortical integration 28,29 . The width of the LCC and PCC provides valuable information about the subarachnoid space and its relationship to brain structures, providing information about the development and maturation of the brain as a whole 30 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does diabetes mellitus affect the development of fetal brain structures and spaces including corpus callosum, subarachnoid space, insula, and parieto‐occipital fissure?

Guleroglu,

Ocal,

Bakirci

et al. 2023

J of Clinical Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeWe investigated the impact of pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM and GDM) on the development of fetal intracranial structures and spaces.MethodsThis prospective cross‐sectional study involved singleton pregnancies between 20 and 32 weeks of gestation. The study comprised a control group (n = 65) of healthy pregnant women without diabetes mellitus (DM); a PGDM group (n = 43) of pregnant women having type 2 DM in a controlled diabetic state; and a GDM group (n = 26) of pregnant women with GDM diagnosed with 2‐h 75‐g oral glucose tolerance test and received intervention to reduce the diabetic impact on fetus. During neurosonographic evaluation, the simultaneous measurements of corpus callosum (CC) width and depth in the midsagittal image; and lateral craniocortical and posterior craniocortical widths of the subarachnoid space and insular and parieto‐occipital fissure depths in the axial image were performed. Before statistical analysis, these values were carefully adjusted for the occipitofrontal diameter.ResultsThe DM groups displayed substantially higher frequencies of family history of DM and obstetric history of GDM compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Regarding the neurosonographic parameters, the CC length and insular and parieto‐occipital fissure depths were significantly increased in the GDM group but not in the PGDM group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found among the study groups regarding other neurosonographic parameters (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results of neurosonographical evaluation of fetal brain structures and spaces reveal that diabetic impact may not be seen in the presence of PGDM, especially in pregnant women receiving prenatal interventions to reduce or avoid diabetic adverse effects on fetal brain development. The effect of GDM on neurosonographically assessed fetal brain development should be evaluated in further studies with subjects matched for gestational weeks and antenatal care conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does diabetes mellitus affect the development of fetal brain structures and spaces including corpus callosum, subarachnoid space, insula, and parieto‐occipital fissure?

Guleroglu,

Ocal,

Bakirci

et al. 2023

J of Clinical Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recognized risk factors for this condition include maternal alcohol consumption, 7 and rarely, maternal phenylketonuria, maternal infections with cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, rubella, or influenza during pregnancy and vascular/hypoxic insults to the mother 3 . Alcohol is considered a destructive agent to CC development, 8 and as such, it is highly recommended that maternal alcohol consumption is avoided in all trimesters of pregnancy 9 . Advanced maternal age, associated with an increased probability of chromosomal anomalies, may increase the risk of ACC 3 .…”

Section: Epidemiology and Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment for ACC is symptom‐dependent, and supportive rather than curative 12 . It can involve 1 anti‐epileptic medications, 2 special education, 3 physiotherapy, 4 ventriculoperitoneal shunt (for cases where hydrocephalus is present) 5 genetic counseling for family members, 6 surgeries for associated morphological abnormalities, 7 speech and visual rehabilitation, and 8 psychological and psychiatric therapies 12 . In some cases of ACC in which an interhemispheric cyst is also present, hydrocephalus may occur.…”

Section: Options For Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agenesis of the corpus callosum: What to tell expecting parents?

Tsai,

Shinar

2023

Prenatal Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agenesis of the corpus callosum (ACC) is one of the most common brain malformations, with an incidence estimated to range from 0.5 to 70 in 10,000 among the general population. Prenatal diagnosis is made via ultrasound; however, fetal MRI is useful to confirm or exclude the presence of associated cerebral abnormalities–mostly cortical malformations–that may affect postnatal prognosis. When no additional central nervous system (CNS) or extra CNS anomalies are identified and no genetic cause is found, an isolated ACC is diagnosed. Overall, in cases of ACC, an underlying genetic cause can be identified in up to 12.5% with chromosomal microarray (CMA) and up to 47% with whole exome sequencing (WES). In cases where ACC is the only anomaly detected, the yield of WES is 30%. Postnatal outcomes are variable and depend on whether the condition is isolated or not. In truly isolated ACC, outcomes range from normal in 65% of cases through mild to severe neurodevelopmental impairments in 35% of cases. An interdisciplinary team of medical experts is key in guiding parents toward informed decision‐making in pregnancies complicated by ACC. Considering current and expected advancements in genetic testing and imaging technologies in upcoming years, we herein summarize current recommendations for the management and prenatal counseling of expecting parents of fetuses with ACC. Our review pertains primarily to expecting parents of fetuses with complete ACC.

show abstract

“…Due to its central location and role, congenital or acquired anomaly of the CC can have drastic effects on brain development and its function. However, only the definition of complete agenesis of the CC is consensual, confirmed with indirect signs observed on ultrasound or MRI [ 8 ]. The partial agenesis of the CC, due to a lack of visualization of one of its parts, is more difficult to diagnose despite well-defined criteria [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corpus callosum in children with neurodevelopmental delay: MRI standard qualitative assessment versus automatic quantitative analysis

Mandine,

Tavernier,

Hülnhagen

et al. 2023

Eur Radiol Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The corpus callosum (CC) is a key brain structure. In children with neurodevelopmental delay, we compared standard qualitative radiological assessments with an automatic quantitative tool. Methods We prospectively enrolled 73 children (46 males, 63.0%) with neurodevelopmental delay at single university hospital between September 2020 and September 2022. All of them underwent 1.5-T brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including a magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echoes − MP2RAGE sequence. Two radiologists blindly reviewed the images to classify qualitatively the CC into normal, hypoplasic, hyperplasic, and/or dysgenetic classes. An automatic tool (QuantiFIRE) was used to provide brain volumetry and T1 relaxometry automatically as well as deviations of those parameters compared with a healthy age-matched cohort. The MRI reference standard for CC volumetry was based on the Garel et al. study. Cohen κ statistics was used for interrater agreement. The radiologists and QuantiFIRE’s diagnostic accuracy were compared with the reference standard using the Delong test. Results The CC was normal in 42 cases (57.5%), hypoplastic in 20 cases (27.4%), and hypertrophic in 11 cases (15.1%). T1 relaxometry values were abnormal in 26 children (35.6%); either abnormally high (18 cases, 24.6%) or low (8 cases, 11.0%). The interrater Cohen κ coefficient was 0.91. The diagnostic accuracy of the QuantiFIRE prototype was higher than that of the radiologists for hypoplastic and normal CC (p = 0.003 for both subgroups, Delong test). Conclusions An automated volumetric and relaxometric assessment can assist the evaluation of brain structure such as the CC, particularly in the case of subtle abnormalities. Relevance statement Automated brain MRI segmentation combined with statistical comparison to normal volume and T1 relaxometry values can be a useful diagnostic support tool for radiologists. Key points • Corpus callosum abnormality detection is challenging but clinically relevant. • Automated quantitative volumetric analysis had a higher diagnostic accuracy than that of visual appreciation of radiologists. • Quantitative T1 relaxometric analysis might help characterizing corpus callosum better. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Fetal corpus callosum abnormalities: Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging role

Cited by 7 publications

References 65 publications

Does diabetes mellitus affect the development of fetal brain structures and spaces including corpus callosum, subarachnoid space, insula, and parieto‐occipital fissure?

Does diabetes mellitus affect the development of fetal brain structures and spaces including corpus callosum, subarachnoid space, insula, and parieto‐occipital fissure?

Agenesis of the corpus callosum: What to tell expecting parents?

Corpus callosum in children with neurodevelopmental delay: MRI standard qualitative assessment versus automatic quantitative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About