PDF icon Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2025; 42(09): 1186-1191
DOI: 10.1055/a-2466-1319
Original Article

Incidence of New, Nonphysiologic Maternal Findings on Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Shirley J. Shao 
1   School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Andrew Grimes
2   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Marley Rashad
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California
,
Liina Poder
4   Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Dorothy Shum
4   Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Nasim C. Sobhani 
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available ateRefHebammen
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective

Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for evaluation of fetal anomalies, and rates of incidental maternal findings are not well characterized. Our objective was to evaluate the rate of incidental maternal findings at the time of antenatal MRI performed for fetal indications.

Study Design

This was a retrospective cohort study that included all fetal MRIs performed between 2018 and 2023 at a single tertiary care institution with a multidisciplinary fetal diagnosis and treatment center. The electronic medical record was reviewed to identify all documented maternal findings and any new, nonphysiologic maternal findings. The latter was defined as previously unknown abnormalities of maternal structures unrelated to normal physiology.

Results

Our study included 834 imaging events, performed at an average gestational age of 23 weeks. The most common indication for imaging was fetal anomaly (81.1%). The most common imaging type was fetal brain MRI (81.4%). Overall, 16.2% reported a maternal finding and 7% reported a new, nonphysiologic finding. The most common new, nonphysiologic findings were renal cysts (n = 11), liver cysts (n = 6), and gallstones or gallbladder sludge (n = 5). Compared with imaging events that included a fetal brain MRI, imaging events that included a fetal body MRI had a significantly higher rate of any maternal findings (53.0 vs. 10.4%, p < 0.001) and new, nonphysiologic maternal findings (26.9 vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the risk of identifying new, nonphysiologic maternal findings on fetal MRI is low. The rate of any maternal and new, nonphysiologic maternal findings may differ by fetal MRI type due to differences in imaging depth and extent of radiology subspecialist review. These data should be incorporated into pretest counseling for patients planning to have fetal MRI.

Key Points

  • The rate of incidental maternal findings on fetal MRI was 7%—lower than previously reported.

  • Incidental maternal findings were more common on fetal body versus brain MRI.

  • Maternal BMI did not impact incidence of new, nonphysiologic maternal findings.

  • Our results could inform pretest counseling and consent discussions around fetal MRI.

Keywords

fetal imaging - incidental finding - incidentaloma - obstetrics

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 12 October 2024

Accepted: 11 November 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
12 November 2024

Article published online:
17 December 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Gonçalves LF, Lee W, Mody S, Shetty A, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Romero R. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of fetal anomalies: a blinded case-control study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48 (02) 185-192
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Levine D. Ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in fetal evaluation. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 12 (01) 25-38
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Valevičienė NR, Varytė G, Zakarevičienė J, Kontrimavičiūtė E, Ramašauskaitė D, Rutkauskaitė-Valančienė D. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating fetal brain and abdomen malformations during pregnancy. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55 (02) 55
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Story L, Knight CL, Ho A. et al. Maternal and fetal incidental findings on antenatal magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2021; 51 (10) 1839-1847
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ruiz M, Wilson MP, Randhawa S, Low G. Incidental maternal findings on fetal MRI. Clin Radiol 2023; 78 (05) 356-361
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Abdullah SB, Dietz KR, Holm TL. Fetal MRI: incidental findings in the mother. Pediatr Radiol 2016; 46 (12) 1736-1743
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Faúndes A, Brícola-Filho M, Pinto e Silva JL. Dilatation of the urinary tract during pregnancy: proposal of a curve of maximal caliceal diameter by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178 (05) 1082-1086
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Murao F. Ultrasonic evaluation of hydronephrosis during pregnancy and puerperium. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1993; 35 (02) 94-98
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Erickson LM, Nicholson SF, Lewall DB, Frischke L. Ultrasound evaluation of hydronephrosis of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1979; 7 (02) 128-132
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Cheung KL, Lafayette RA. Renal physiology of pregnancy. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2013; 20 (03) 209-214
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bui TH, Raymond FL, Van den Veyver IB. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: should incidental findings arising from prenatal testing always be reported to patients?. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34 (01) 12-17
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Vears D, Amor DJ. A framework for reporting secondary and incidental findings in prenatal sequencing: when and for whom?. Prenat Diagn 2022; 42 (06) 697-704
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hillman SC, Willams D, Carss KJ, McMullan DJ, Hurles ME, Kilby MD. Prenatal exome sequencing for fetuses with structural abnormalities: the next step. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45 (01) 4-9
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Monaghan KG, Leach NT, Pekarek D, Prasad P, Rose NC. ACMG Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee. The use of fetal exome sequencing in prenatal diagnosis: a points to consider document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2020; 22 (04) 675-680
    Search in Google Scholar