Re: Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome of small-for-gestational-age pregnancy using size centiles and conditional growth centiles. H. O. Karlsen, S. L. Johnsen, S. Rasmussen and T. Kiserud. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 217-223

Diagnostic performance of third-trimester ultrasound for the prediction of late-onset fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to establish the diagnostic performance of ultrasound screening for predicting late smallness for gestational age and/or fetal growth restriction.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed to identify relevant studies published since 2007 in English, Spanish, French, Italian, or German, using the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We used rrospective and retrospective cohort studies in low-risk or nonselected singleton pregnancies with screening ultrasound performed at ≥32 weeks of gestation.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The estimated fetal weight and fetal abdominal circumference were assessed as index tests for the prediction of birthweight <10th (i.e. smallness for gestational age), less than the fifth, and less than the third centile and fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight less than the third or estimated fetal weight <10th plus Doppler signs). Quality of the included studies was independently assessed by 2 reviewers, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. For the meta-analysis, hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed, and quantitative data synthesis was performed using random-effects models. The sensitivity of the abdominal circumference <10th centile and estimated fetal weight <10th centile for a fixed 10% false-positive rate was derived from the corresponding hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curves. Heterogeneity between studies was visually assessed using Galbraith plots, and publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and quantified by Deeks' method.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. Observed pooled sensitivities of abdominal circumference and estimated fetal weight <10th centile for birthweight <10th centile were 35% (95% confidence interval, 20-52%) and 38% (95% confidence interval, 31-46%), respectively. Observed pooled specificities were 97% (95% confidence interval, 95-98%) and 95% (95% confidence interval, 93-97%), respectively. Modeled sensitivities of abdominal circumference and estimated fetal weight <10th centile for 10% false-positive rate were 78% (95% confidence interval, 61-95%) and 54% (95% confidence interval, 46-52%), respectively. The sensitivity of estimated fetal weight <10th centile was better when aimed to fetal growth restriction than to smallness for gestational age. Meta-regression analysis showed a significant increase in sensitivity when ultrasound evaluation was performed later in pregnancy (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Third-trimester abdominal circumference and estimated fetal weight perform similar in predicting smallness for gestational age. However, for a fixed 10% false-positive rate extrapolated sensitivity is higher for abdominal circumference. There is evidence of better performance when the scan is performed near term and when fetal growth restriction is the targeted condition.

Fetal growth velocity and body proportion in the assessment of growth

Fetal growth restriction implies failure of a fetus to meet its growth potential and is associated with increased perinatal mortality and morbidity. Therefore, antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction is of major importance in an attempt to deliver improved clinical outcomes. The most commonly used approach towards screening for fetal growth restriction is by means of sonographic fetal weight estimation, to detect fetuses small for gestational age, defined by an estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for gestational age. However, the predictive accuracy of this approach is limited both by suboptimal detection rate (as it may overlook non-small-for-gestational-age growth-restricted fetuses) and by a high false-positive rate (as most small-for-gestational-age fetuses are not growth restricted). Here, we review 2 strategies that may improve the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic fetal biometry for fetal growth restriction. The first strategy involves serial ultrasound evaluations of fetal biometry. The information obtained through these serial assessments can be interpreted using several different approaches including fetal growth velocity, conditional percentiles, projection-based methods, and individualized growth assessment that can be viewed as mathematical techniques to quantify any decrease in estimated fetal weight percentile, a phenomenon that many care providers assess and monitor routinely in a qualitative manner. This strategy appears promising in high-risk pregnancies where it seems to improve the detection of growth-restricted fetuses at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes and, at the same time, decrease the risk of falsely diagnosing healthy constitutionally small-for-gestational-age fetuses as growth restricted. Further studies are needed to determine the utility of this strategy in low-risk pregnancies as well as to optimize its performance by determining the optimal timing and interval between exams. The second strategy refers to the use of fetal body proportions to classify fetuses as either symmetric or asymmetric using 1 of several ratios; these include the head circumference to abdominal circumference ratio, transverse cerebellar diameter to abdominal circumference ratio, and femur length to abdominal circumference ratio. Although these ratios are associated with small for gestational age at birth and with adverse perinatal outcomes, their predictive accuracy is too low for clinical practice. Furthermore, these associations become questionable when other, potentially more specific measures such as umbilical artery Doppler are being used. Furthermore, these ratios are of limited use in determining the etiology underlying fetal smallness. It is possible that the use of the 2 gestational-age-independent ratios (transverse cerebellar diameter to abdominal circumference and femur length to abdominal circumference) may have a role in the detection of mild-moderate fetal growth restriction in pregnancies without adequate dating. In addition, despite their limited predictive accuracy, these ratios may become abnormal early in the course of fetal growth restriction and may therefore identify pregnancies that may benefit from closer monitoring of fetal growth.