Minimally invasive, imaging guided virtual autopsy compared to conventional autopsy in foetal, newborn and infant cases: study protocol for the paediatric virtual autopsy trial

BMC Pediatrics

Hans Ulrich Bucher⁶  Leonhard Schäffer¹  Bernhard Frey³  Rosmarie Caduff⁵  Peter Karl Bode⁵  Elisabeth Bruder⁴  Leonhard Held⁷  Brigitte Koller⁶  Stephan A Bolliger²  Steffen Ross²  Rosa Maria Martinez²  Christine Bartsch²  Christoph M Rüegger³ 

[1] Division of Obstetrics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;University Children’s Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland;Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland;Department of Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Division of Biostatistics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

关键词: Infant;    Newborn;    Stillbirth;    Foetus;    Virtopsy®;    Guided biopsy;    Minimally invasive virtual autopsy;    Post-mortem imaging;    Autopsy;   

Others  :  1143940
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-14-15

 received in 2013-08-02, accepted in 2014-01-17,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In light of declining autopsy rates around the world, post-mortem MR imaging is a promising alternative to conventional autopsy in the investigation of infant death. A major drawback of this non-invasive autopsy approach is the fact that histopathological and microbiological examination of the tissue is not possible. The objective of this prospective study is to compare the performance of minimally invasive, virtual autopsy, including CT-guided biopsy, with conventional autopsy procedures in a paediatric population.

Methods/Design

Foetuses, newborns and infants that are referred for autopsy at three different institutions associated with the University of Zurich will be eligible for recruitment. All bodies will be examined with a commercial CT and a 3 Tesla MRI scanner, masked to the results of conventional autopsy. After cross-sectional imaging, CT-guided tissue sampling will be performed by a multifunctional robotic system (Virtobot) allowing for automated post-mortem biopsies. Virtual autopsy results will be classified with regards to the likely final diagnosis and major pathological findings and compared to the results of conventional autopsy, which remains the diagnostic gold standard.

Discussion

There is an urgent need for the development of alternative post-mortem examination methods, not only as a counselling tool for families and as a quality control measure for clinical diagnosis and treatment but also as an instrument to advance medical knowledge and clinical practice. This interdisciplinary study will determine whether virtual autopsy will narrow the gap in information between non-invasive and traditional autopsy procedures.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01888380

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Rüegger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dorsey DB: A perspective on the autopsy. Am J Clin Pathol 1978, 69:217-219.
• [2]Shojania KG, Burton EC: The vanishing nonforensic autopsy. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:873-875.
• [3]Brodlie M, Laing IA, Keeling JW, McKenzie KJ: Ten years of neonatal autopsies in tertiary referral centre: retrospective study. BMJ 2002, 324:761-763.
• [4]Swinton CH, Weiner J, Okah FA: The neonatal autopsy: can it be revived? Am J Perinatol 2013, 30:739-744.
• [5]Adappa R, Paranjothy S, Roberts Z, Cartlidge PHT: Perinatal and infant autopsy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007, 92:F49-F50.
• [6]Akgun H, Basbug M, Ozgun MT, Canoz O, Tokat F, Murat N, Ozturk F: Correlation between prenatal ultrasound and fetal autopsy findings in fetal anomalies terminated in the second trimester. Prenat Diagn 2007, 27:457-462.
• [7]Picone O, Levaillant J-M, Hirt R, Frydman R, Boulvain M, Senat M-V: Correlation between referral ultrasound with suspected foetal anomalies and autopsy examination in two prenatal diagnosis centres. Impact of the routine use of 3D/4D scan. Prenat Diagn 2008, 28:191-196.
• [8]Stambouly JJ, Kahn E, Boxer RA: Correlation between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings in critically ill children. Pediatrics 1993, 92:248-251.
• [9]Burton JL, Underwood J: Clinical, educational, and epidemiological value of autopsy. The Lancet 2007, 369:1471-1480.
• [10]McHaffie HE, Fowlie PW, Hume R, Laing IA, Lloyd DJ, Lyon AJ: Consent to autopsy for neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001, 85:F4-F7.
• [11]Breeze ACG, Statham H, Hackett GA, Jessop FA, Lees CC: Perinatal postmortems: what is important to parents and how do they decide? Birth 2012, 39:57-64.
• [12]Ben-Sasi K, Chitty LS, Franck LS, Thayyil S, Judge-Kronis L, Taylor AM, Sebire NJ: Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: healthcare professionals' views and implications for practice. Prenat Diagn 2013, 33:307-312.
• [13]Cannie M, Votino C, Moerman P, Vanheste R, Segers V, Van Berkel K, Hanssens M, Kang X, Cos T, Kir M, Balepa L, Divano L, Foulon W, De Mey J, Jani J: Acceptance, reliability and confidence of diagnosis of fetal and neonatal virtuopsy compared with conventional autopsy: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012, 39:659-665.
• [14]Avrahami R, Watemberg S, Daniels-Philips E, Kahana T, Hiss J: Endoscopic autopsy. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1995, 16:147-150.
• [15]Rutty GN, Brogdon G, Dedouit F, Grabherr S, Hatch GM, Jackowski C, Leth P, Persson A, Ruder TD, Shiotani S, Takahashi N, Thali MJ, Woźniak K, Yen K, Morgan B: Terminology used in publications for post-mortem cross-sectional imaging. Int J Legal Med 2013, 127:465-466.
• [16]Brookes JA, Hall-Craggs MA, Sams VR, Lees WR: Non-invasive perinatal necropsy by magnetic resonance imaging. The Lancet 1996, 348:1139-1141.
• [17]Alderliesten MEM, Peringa JJ, van der Hulst VPMV, Blaauwgeers HLGH, van Lith JMMJ: Perinatal mortality: clinical value of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging compared with autopsy in routine obstetric practice. BJOG 2003, 110:378-382.
• [18]Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Harris DP, Jackson GM, Klatt ED, Alexander AL, Kennedy A: Postmortem fetal MR imaging: comparison with findings at autopsy. Am J Roentgenol 1996, 168:41-46.
• [19]Griffiths PD, Variend D, Evans M, Jones A, Wilkinson ID, Paley M, Whitby E: Postmortem MR imaging of the fetal and stillborn central nervous system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002, 24:22-27.
• [20]Huisman T, Wisser J, Stallmach T: MR autopsy in fetuses. Fetal Diagn Ther 2002, 17:58-64.
• [21]Cohen MC, Paley MN, Griffiths PD, Whitby EH: Less invasive autopsy: benefits and limitations of the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the perinatal postmortem. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2008, 11:1-9.
• [22]Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS, Wade A, Chong W, Olsen O, Gunny RS, Offiah AC, Owens CM, Saunders DE, Scott RJ, Jones R, Norman W, Addison S, Bainbridge A, Cady EB, Vita ED, Robertson NJ, Taylor AM, MARIAS collaborative group: Post-mortem MRI versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: a prospective validation study. Lancet 2013, 382:223-233.
• [23]Weber MA, Pryce JW, Ashworth MT, Malone M, Sebire NJ: Histological examination in sudden unexpected death in infancy: evidence base for histological sampling. J Clin Pathol 2012, 65:58-63.
• [24]Garg S, Punia RPS, Basu S, Mohan H, Bal A: Comparison of needle autopsy with conventional autopsy in neonates. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 2009, 28:139-150.
• [25]Fariña J, Millana C, Fdez-Aceñero MJ, Furió V, Aragoncillo P, Martín VG, Buencuerpo J: Ultrasonographic autopsy (echopsy): a new autopsy technique. Virchows Arch 2002, 440:635-639.
• [26]Breeze ACG, Jessop FA, Whitehead AL, Set PAK, Berman L, Hackett GA, Lees CC, for the Cambridge post mortem MRI Study Group: Feasibility of percutaneous organ biopsy as part of a minimally invasive perinatal autopsy. Virchows Arch 2007, 452:201-207.
• [27]Aghayev E, Thali MJ, Sonnenschein M, Jackowski C, Dirnhofer R, Vock P: Post-mortem tissue sampling using computed tomography guidance. Forensic Sci Int 2007, 166:199-203.
• [28]Ebert LC, Ptacek W, Naether S, Fürst M, Ross S, Buck U, Weber S, Thali M: Virtobot–a multi-functional robotic system for 3D surface scanning and automatic post mortem biopsy. Int J Med Robot 2010, 6:18-27.
• [29]Dirnhofer ST, Bubendorf L, Lehr H-A, Landau B, Zenklusen H-R: Qualitätsrichtlinien SGPath. SGPath/SSPath. http://www.sgpath.ch/docs/QR_SGPath_DE_2011.pdf webcite. Accessed 9 Feb 2013
• [30]Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner S: Statistics with confidence: confidence interval and statistical guidelines. Bristol: BMJ Books; 2000.