Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter January 17, 2015

Cervical sonoelastography for improving prediction of preterm birth compared with cervical length measurement and fetal fibronectin test

  • Dinah von Schöning , Thomas Fischer , Elisabeth von Tucher , Torsten Slowinski , Alexander Weichert , Wolfgang Henrich and Anke Thomas EMAIL logo

Abstract

Aim: Accurate prediction of the risk of spontaneous preterm birth is crucial for the clinical management of patients with preterm labor. The aim of the study was to investigate whether cervical sonoelastography improves prediction of spontaneous preterm birth compared with cervical length measurement and a fetal fibronectin (fFN) test.

Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted including 64 patients with preterm labor at 23–34 weeks of gestation. Patients had an fFN test and transvaginal cervical length measurement, followed by real-time cervical sonoelastography. The ratio of nondeformable tissue to the total area of a designed region of interest was analyzed and related to the gestational week of delivery.

Results: Cervical sonoelastography and fFN test show a significant correlation with spontaneous preterm delivery (P=0.007, P=0.001), resulting in 72.7%/36% sensitivity and 73%/95% specificity. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 61.5%/81.8% and the negative predictive value was 81.8%/70%. The cervical length was not different in cases with and without term delivery (P=0.165).

Conclusions: Cervical sonoelastography is a promising technique that can complement routine diagnostic procedures to improve prediction of preterm birth. The PPV is improved by an fFN test.


Corresponding author: PD Dr med. Anke Thomas, Ultrasound Research Lab, Department of Obstetrics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany; and Ultrasound Research Lab, Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany, Tel.: +49-30-450664564; Fax: +49-30-450527975, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We thank the medical team of the obstetric department, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, for assistance in patient enrollment.

References

[1] Beck S, Wojdyla D, Say L, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Requejo JH, et al. The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: a systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:31–8.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379:2162–72.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371:75–84.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Tsoi E, Fuchs IB, Rane S, Geerts L, Nicolaides KH. Sonographic measurement of cervical length in threatened preterm labor in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:353–6.Search in Google Scholar

[5] To MS, Skentou CA, Royston P, Yu CK, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of patient-specific risk of early preterm delivery using maternal history and sonographic measurement of cervical length: a population-based prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:362–7.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:567–72.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Daskalakis GJ, Papantoniou NE, Koutsodimas NB, Papapanagiotou A, Antsaklis AJ. Fetal fibronectin as predictor for preterm birth. J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;20:347–53.Search in Google Scholar

[8] DeFranco EA, Lewis DF, Odibo AO. Improving the screening accuracy for preterm labor: is the combination of fetal fibronectin and cervical length in symptomatic patients a useful predictor for preterm birth? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:233.e1–6.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, Bojunga J, Correas JM, Gilja OH, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34:238–53.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Frulio N, Trillaud H. Ultrasound elastography in liver. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94:515–34.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Thomas A, Degenhardt F, Farrokh A, Wojcinski S, Slowinski T, Fischer T. Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions: calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:558–63.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Thomas A, Warm M, Hoopmann M, Diekmann F, Fischer T. Tissue Doppler and strain imaging for evaluating tissue elasticity of breast lesions. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:522–9.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Feltovich H, Hall TJ, Berghella V. Beyond cervical length: emerging technologies for assessing the pregnant cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:345–54.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Fruscalzo A, Steinhard J, Londero AP, Fröhlich C, Bijnens B, Klockenbusch W, et al. Reliability of quantitative elastography of the uterine cervix in at-term pregnancies. J Perinat Med. 2013;41:421–7.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Hernandez-Andrade E, Hassan SS, Ahn H, Korzeniewski SJ, Yeo L, Chaiworapongsa T, et al. Evaluation of cervical stiffness during pregnancy using semiquantitative ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:152–61.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Molina FS, Gómez LF, Florido J, Padilla MC, Nicolaides KH. Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:685–9.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Thomas A, Kümmel S, Gemeinhardt O, Fischer T. Real-time sonoelastography of the cervix: tissue elasticity of the normal and abnormal cervix. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:193–200.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS. Imaging analysis of cervical elastography of prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:937–46.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:52–6.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Khalil MR, Thorsen P, Uldbjerg N. Cervical ultrasound elastography may hold the potential to predict risk of preterm birth. Dan Med J. 2013;60:A4570.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R, Klockenbusch W, Steinhard J. Reliability of cervix elastography in the late first and second trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33:E101–7.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R. Quantitative cervical elastography in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40:612–3.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Honest H, Bachmann LM, Gupta JK, Kleijnen J, Khan KS. Accuracy of cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin test in predicting risk of spontaneous preterm birth: systematic review. Br Med J. 2002;325:301.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Abbott DS, Radford SK, Seed PT, Tribe RM, Shennan AH. Evaluation of a quantitative fetal fibronectin test for spontaneous preterm birth in symptomatic women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:122.e1–6.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Kurtzman J, Chandiramani M, Briley A, Poston L, Das A, Shennan A. Quantitative fetal fibronectin screening in asymptomatic high-risk patients and the spectrum of risk for recurrent preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:263.e1–6.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Schmitz T, Maillard F, Bessard-Bacquaert S, Kayem G, Fulla Y, Cabrol D, et al. Selective use of fetal fibronectin detection after cervical length measurement to predict spontaneous preterm delivery in women with preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:138–43.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Hincz P, Wilczynski J, Kozarzewski M, Szaflik K. Two-step test: the combined use of fetal fibronectin and sonographic examination of the uterine cervix for prediction of preterm delivery in symptomatic patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:58–63.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Deplagne C, Maurice-Tison S, Coatleven F, Vandenbossche F, Horovitz J. Sequential use of cervical length measurement before fetal fibronectin detection to predict spontaneous preterm delivery in women with preterm labor. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2010;39:575–83.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M, Insana M. Selected methods for imaging elastic properties of biological tissues. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;5:57–78.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Dutta D, Norman JE. The efficacy of fetal fibronectin testing in minimising hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, and cost savings in women presenting with symptoms of pre-term labor. J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;30:768–73.Search in Google Scholar

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2014-11-17
Accepted: 2014-12-3
Published Online: 2015-1-17
Published in Print: 2015-9-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2014-0356/html
Scroll to top button