Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-12470
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiologist (scientific)
DOI: 10.26044/ecr2025/C-12470
Authorblock: S. Tan, D. Richmond, M. Mil, J. Keene, C. Shadbolt, E. E. Alibrahim, D. Nesbit, S-F. Oon; Melbourne/AU
Disclosures:
Samantha Tan: Nothing to disclose
Danielle Richmond: Nothing to disclose
Michael Mil: Nothing to disclose
Jacqui Keene: Nothing to disclose
Clair Shadbolt: Nothing to disclose
Ekaterina Ekaterina Alibrahim: Nothing to disclose
Deborah Nesbit: Nothing to disclose
Sheng-Fei Oon: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Foetal imaging, Genital / Reproductive system female, Obstetrics (Pregnancy / birth / postnatal period), MR, Ultrasound, Outcomes analysis, Foetus, Obstetrics
Results

Of 123 patients, 84 patients were included in the final analysis when exclusion criteria were applied. Table 1 demonstrates the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUC data for MRI, US and combined MRI and US (see Table 1). The sensitivity, specificity and AUC of MRI in diagnosing PAD was 88.9%, 79.4% and 84.1%, respectively, compared to US (60.6%, 78.3% and 69.4%, respectively). Subgroup analysis for placenta accreta/increta accuracy for MRI revealed a sensitivity, specificity and AUC of 95.2%, 66.3% and 79.3%, respectively, compared to US (68.4%, 61.8% and 65.1%, respectively). For percreta, MRI demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity and AUC of 80%, 93.8% and 87%, respectively, compared to ultrasound (50%, 93.3% and 71.7%, respectively). The combined use of MRI and US however was superior to MRI or US alone, and provided a combined sensitivity, specificity and AUC for diagnosing PAD at 88.2%, 87.5% and 88.2%, respectively. For diagnosing percreta, the combined MRI/US had superior performance over MRI or US alone with sensitivity and NPV at 100% (p=<0.001).
GALLERY