Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Comparison of preterm and term equivalent age MRI for the evaluation of preterm brain injury

Journal of Perinatology volume 37, pages 864–868 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

To compare information obtained from preterm magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 31–34 weeks) brain scan to that done at term equivalent age.

Study design:

Prospective observational study of premature infants with evidence or suspicion of parenchymal brain injury on cranial ultrasound. Brain injury on two scans scored using a scoring system and analyzed.

Results:

Fourteen infants with a median (range) gestation at birth of 28 (25–29) weeks and birth weight of 1254 (680–1557) grams were studied. There was a strong correlation between the brain injury scores for the two scans (Spearman ρ=0.87, P=0.001) with excellent agreement between two radiologists (interclass correlation coefficient 0.9–0.94). There was also a high level of agreement between the preterm and term MRI two scores (Intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.79 (0.53–0.94)).

Conclusions:

Preterm MRI is a feasible option for the assessment of preterm brain injury and analysis of data obtained from scan at preterm age is comparable to that obtained at term equivalent age.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Walsh MC et al. Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm infants from the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics 2010; 126: 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhutta AT, Cleves MA, Casey PH, Cradock MM, Anand KJ . Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2002; 288: 728–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, Samara M . Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 9–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gupta P, Sodhi KS, Saxena AK, Khandelwal N, Singhi P . Neonatal cranial sonography: a concise review for clinicians. J Pediatr Neurosci 2016; 11: 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Whyte HE, Blaser S . Limitations of routine neuroimaging in predicting outcomes of preterm infants. Neuroradiology 2013; 55 (Suppl 2): 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Woodward LJ, Clark CA, Bora S, Inder TE . Neonatal white matter abnormalities an important predictor of neurocognitive outcome for very preterm children. PloS ONE 2012; 7: e51879.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. de Vries LS, Benders MJ, Groenendaal F . Progress in neonatal neurology with a focus on neuroimaging in the preterm infant. Neuropediatrics 2015; 46: 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ment LR, Hirtz D, Huppi PS . Imaging biomarkers of outcome in the developing preterm brain. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 1042–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Woodward LJ, Anderson PJ, Austin NC, Howard K, Inder TE . Neonatal MRI to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 685–694.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anderson PJ, Cheong JL, Thompson DK . The predictive validity of neonatal MRI for neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm children. Semin Perinatol 2015; 39: 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Plaisier A, Raets MM, Ecury-Goossen GM, Govaert P, Feijen-Roon M, Reiss IK et al. Serial cranial ultrasonography or early MRI for detecting preterm brain injury? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015; 100: F293–F300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ashwal S, Russman BS, Blasco PA, Miller G, Sandler A, Shevell M et al. Practice parameter: diagnostic assessment of the child with cerebral palsy: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology 2004; 62: 851–863.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Altman DG . Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Taylor & Francis: UK, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hintz SR, Barnes PD, Bulas D, Slovis TL, Finer NN, Wrage LA et al. Neuroimaging and neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely preterm infants. Pediatrics 2015; 135: e32–e42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Plaisier A, Govaert P, Lequin MH, Dudink J . Optimal timing of cerebral MRI in preterm infants to predict long-term neurodevelopmental outcome: a systematic review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35: 841–847.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller SP, Ferriero DM, Leonard C, Piecuch R, Glidden DV, Partridge JC et al. Early brain injury in premature newborns detected with magnetic resonance imaging is associated with adverse early neurodevelopmental outcome. J Pediatr 2005; 147: 609–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Glass HC, Bonifacio SL, Chau V, Glidden D, Poskitt K, Barkovich AJ et al. Recurrent postnatal infections are associated with progressive white matter injury in premature infants. Pediatrics 2008; 122: 299–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rademaker KJ, Uiterwaal CS, Beek FJ, van Haastert IC, Lieftink AF, Groenendaal F et al. Neonatal cranial ultrasound versus MRI and neurodevelopmental outcome at school age in children born preterm. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90: F489–F493.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dyet LE, Kennea N, Counsell SJ, Maalouf EF, Ajayi-Obe M, Duggan PJ et al. Natural history of brain lesions in extremely preterm infants studied with serial magnetic resonance imaging from birth and neurodevelopmental assessment. Pediatrics 2006; 118: 536–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Badr LK, Bookheimer S, Purdy I, Deeb M . Predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome for preterm infants with brain injury: MRI, medical and environmental factors. Early Hum Dev 2009; 85: 279–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. De Vries LS, Benders MJ, Groenendaal F . Should early cranial MRI of preterm infants become routine? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015; 100: F284–F285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Doria V, Arichi T, Edwards DA . Magnetic resonance imaging of the preterm infant brain. Curr Pediatr Rev 2014; 10: 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kidokoro H, Neil JJ, Inder TE . New MR imaging assessment tool to define brain abnormalities in very preterm infants at term. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013; 34: 2208–2214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Shiran SI, Weinstein M, Sirota-Cohen C, Myers V, Ben Bashat D, Fattal-Valevski A et al. MRI-based radiologic scoring system for extent of brain injury in children with hemiplegia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35: 2388–2396.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Reid SM, Dagia CD, Ditchfield MR, Carlin JB, Meehan EM, Reddihough DS . An Australian population study of factors associated with MRI patterns in cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2014; 56: 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson MN, Peake LJ, Ditchfield MR, Reid SM, Lanigan A, Reddihough DS . Magnetic resonance imaging findings in a population-based cohort of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2009; 51: 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stokowski LA . Ensuring safety for infants undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Adv Neonatal Care 2005; 5: 14–27, quiz 52-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lane A, Chuk LM, Colditz PB, Coulthard A . The MRI-compatible neonatal incubator in practice. J Paediatr Child Health 2013; 49: E377–E380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tocchio S, Kline-Fath B, Kanal E, Schmithorst VJ, Panigrahy A . MRI evaluation and safety in the developing brain. Semin Perinatol 2015; 39: 73–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. O'Regan K, Filan P, Pandit N, Maher M, Fanning N . Image quality associated with the use of an MR-compatible incubator in neonatal neuroimaging. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 363–367.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by a Southern Health Senior Medical Staff Association Award and the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Program. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards (HREC approval number 11219B). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author contributions

AM designed the study, recruited infants, collected data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MF helped in the design of the study and contributed to the manuscript submission. MDT provide statistical support in the design and report of the study; FW and EC contributed to the design of the study and are involved in the follow up of the infants and manuscript submission. GW and MD were the radiologists involved in reporting and scoring all the MRI scans and contributed to the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash Newborn, Monash Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    A Malhotra, F Wong & E Carse

  2. The Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    A Malhotra, M C Fahey, M Davies-Tuck & F Wong

  3. Department of Paediatrics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    A Malhotra, M C Fahey, F Wong & M Ditchfield

  4. Diagnostic Imaging, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    G Whiteley & M Ditchfield

  5. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    M Ditchfield

Authors
  1. A Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M C Fahey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M Davies-Tuck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E Carse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G Whiteley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M Ditchfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Malhotra.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malhotra, A., Fahey, M., Davies-Tuck, M. et al. Comparison of preterm and term equivalent age MRI for the evaluation of preterm brain injury. J Perinatol 37, 864–868 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.39

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.39

Search

Advanced search

Quick links