Second and Third Trimester Screening for Fetal Anomaly

Variant: 1 Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US pregnant uterus transabdominal anatomy scan	Usually Appropriate	O
US echocardiography fetal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal detailed scan	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI fetal without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI fetal without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 2 Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US pregnant uterus transabdominal detailed scan	Usually Appropriate	O
US echocardiography fetal	May Be Appropriate	O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal anatomy scan	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI fetal without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI fetal without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 3 Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US pregnant uterus transabdominal detailed scan	Usually Appropriate	O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal follow-up	Usually Appropriate	O
US echocardiography fetal	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI fetal without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI fetal without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 4 Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography fetal	Usually Appropriate	O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal detailed scan	Usually Appropriate	O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal follow-up	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI fetal without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI fetal without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Panel Members

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
A. MRI Fetal Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Fetal Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
C. US Echocardiography Fetal

Variant 1: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Detailed Scan

Variant 1: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. Low-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Anatomy Scan

Variant 2: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
A. MRI Fetal Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Fetal Without IV Contrast

Variant 2: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
C. US Echocardiography Fetal

Variant 2: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Detailed Scan

Variant 2: Second and third trimester screening for fetal anomaly. High-risk pregnancy. Initial imaging.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Anatomy Scan

Variant 3: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.
A. MRI Fetal Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.
B. MRI Fetal Without IV Contrast

Variant 3: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.
C. US Echocardiography Fetal

Variant 3: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Follow-up

Variant 3: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: soft markers. Next imaging study.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Detailed Scan

Variant 4: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.
A. MRI Fetal Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 4: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.
B. MRI Fetal Without IV Contrast

Variant 4: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.
C. US Echocardiography Fetal

Variant 4: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Follow-up

Variant 4: Second and third trimester screening for abnormal finding on ultrasound: major anomalies. Next imaging study.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal Detailed Scan

Summary of Recommendations

Safety Considerations in Pregnant Patients

Imaging of the pregnant patient can be challenging, particularly with respect to minimizing radiation exposure and risk. For further information and guidance, see the following ACR documents:

· ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

· ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation

· ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound

· ACR Manual on Contrast Media

· ACR Manual on MR Safety

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Debost-Legrand A, Laurichesse-Delmas H, Francannet C, et al. False positive morphologic diagnoses at the anomaly scan: marginal or real problem, a population-based cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 14:112, 2014 Mar 24.
2.	Estroff JA. Imaging clues in the prenatal diagnosis of syndromes and aneuploidy. Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42 Suppl 1:S5-23.
3.	Hill LM. Timing of ultrasound in pregnancy--how often? At what intervals? Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(5):327-333.
4.	Benson CB, Doubilet PM. The history of imaging in obstetrics. [Review]. Radiology. 273(2 Suppl):S92-110, 2014 Nov.
5.	Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(2):446-454.
6.	AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(6):1083-1101.
7.	Abramowicz JS. Fetal Doppler: how to keep it safe? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(4):842-850.
8.	Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR, Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop. J Ultrasound Med. 33(5):745-57, 2014 May.
9.	Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. [Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (7)CD007058, 2015 Jul 14.
10.	American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR–SRU Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Diagnostic Ultrasound Examinations. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=24+&releaseId=2
11.	Hibbeln JF, Shors SM, Byrd SE. MRI: is there a role in obstetrics?. [Review]. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 55(1):352-66, 2012 Mar.
12.	The California Prenatal Screening Program. 2009; Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/pns/Documents/Provider%20Handbook%20%202009%20WEB.pdf.
13.	Liau J, Romine L, Korty LA, et al. Simplifying the ultrasound findings of the major fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2014;43(6):300-316.
14.	Ogilvie C, Akolekar R. Pregnancy Loss Following Amniocentesis or CVS Sampling-Time for a Reassessment of Risk. J Clin Med 2014;3:741-6.
15.	Agathokleous M, Chaveeva P, Poon LC, Kosinski P, Nicolaides KH. Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(3):247-261.
16.	Bromley B, Shipp TD, Lyons J, Groszmann Y, Navathe RS, Benacerraf BR. What is the importance of second-trimester "soft markers" for trisomy 21 after an 11- to 14-week aneuploidy screening scan?. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 33(10):1747-52, 2014 Oct.
17.	Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics CoG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal M. Practice Bulletin No. 163: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstetrics and gynecology 2016;127:e123-37.
18.	Spencer K, Souter V, Tul N, Snijders R, Nicolaides KH. A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10-14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;13:231-7.
19.	Yagel S, Cohen SM, Porat S, et al. Detailed transabdominal fetal anatomic scanning in the late first trimester versus the early second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 34(1):143-9, 2015 Jan.
20.	Merz E. Can Prenatal Testing in the First Trimester be Performed without Ultrasound? Ultraschall Med 2017;38:126-28.
21.	Glanc P, D'Souza R, Parrish J, Tomlinson G, Maxwell C. Should an Early Anatomy Ultrasound Scan Be Offered Routinely to Obese Pregnant Women? J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40:1288-94.
22.	Paladini D. Sonography in obese and overweight pregnant women: clinical, medicolegal and technical issues. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(6):720-729.
23.	Hata T, Hanaoka U, Tenkumo C, Sato M, Tanaka H, Ishimura M. Three- and four-dimensional HDlive rendering images of normal and abnormal fetuses: pictorial essay. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(6):1431-1435.
24.	Sepulveda W, Ximenes R, Wong AE, Sepulveda F, Martinez-Ten P. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging and three-dimensional ultrasound in clinical practice: applications in prenatal diagnosis. [Review]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 26(5):593-624, 2012 Oct.
25.	Yagel S, Cohen SM, Rosenak D, et al. Added value of three-/four-dimensional ultrasound in offline analysis and diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(4):432-437.
26.	Manganaro L, Vinci V, Bernardo S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of fetal heart: anatomical and pathological findings. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(12):1213-1219.
27.	Gorincour G, Chaumoitre K, Bourliere-Najean B, et al. Fetal skeletal computed tomography: when? How? Why? Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95:1045-53.
28.	Makhlouf M, Saade G. Should second trimester ultrasound be routine for all pregnancies? Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(5):323-326.
29.	National Institute for Health and care Excellence: Antenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancies. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg62/resources/antenatal-care-for-uncomplicated-pregnancies-pdf-975564597445
30.	American College of Radiology. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=28+&releaseId=2.
31.	Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(6):CD001451.
32.	Manegold G, Tercanli S, Struben H, Huang D, Kang A. Is a routine ultrasound in the third trimester justified? Additional fetal anomalies diagnosed after two previous unremarkable ultrasound examinations. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(4):381-386.
33.	Wax J, Minkoff H, Johnson A, et al. Consensus report on the detailed fetal anatomic ultrasound examination: indications, components, and qualifications. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(2):189-195.
34.	Eckmann-Scholz C, von Kaisenberg CS, Alkatout I, Jonat W, Rajabi-Wieckhorst A. Pathologic ultrasound findings and risk for congenital anomalies in teenage pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(10):1950-1952.
35.	Stothard KJ, Tennant PW, Bell R, Rankin J. Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2009;301(6):636-650.
36.	Tsai PJ, Loichinger M, Zalud I. Obesity and the challenges of ultrasound fetal abnormality diagnosis. [Review]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 29(3):320-7, 2015 Apr.
37.	Aagaard-Tillery KM, Flint Porter T, Malone FD, et al. Influence of maternal BMI on genetic sonography in the FaSTER trial. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(1):14-22.
38.	Best KE, Tennant PW, Bell R, Rankin J. Impact of maternal body mass index on the antenatal detection of congenital anomalies. BJOG. 2012;119(12):1503-1511.
39.	Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Effect of maternal obesity on the ultrasound detection of anomalous fetuses. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1001-1007.
40.	Maxwell C, Dunn E, Tomlinson G, Glanc P. How does maternal obesity affect the routine fetal anatomic ultrasound? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010;23:1187-92.
41.	Fuchs F, Houllier M, Voulgaropoulos A, et al. Factors affecting feasibility and quality of second-trimester ultrasound scans in obese pregnant women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(1):40-46.
42.	Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E, et al. Suboptimal second-trimester ultrasonographic visualization of the fetal heart in obese women: should we repeat the examination? J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(9):1205-1209; quiz 1210-1201.
43.	Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E, et al. The impact of maternal obesity on midtrimester sonographic visualization of fetal cardiac and craniospinal structures. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28(12):1607-1611.
44.	Timor-Tritsch IE, Bashiri A, Monteagudo A, Arslan AA. Qualified and trained sonographers in the US can perform early fetal anatomy scans between 11 and 14 weeks. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1247-52.
45.	American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=89+&releaseId=2.
46.	Levine D, Barnes PD, Madsen JR, Li W, Edelman RR. Fetal central nervous system anomalies: MR imaging augments sonographic diagnosis. Radiology. 1997;204(3):635-642.
47.	Whitby E, Paley MN, Davies N, Sprigg A, Griffiths PD. Ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging of central nervous system abnormalities in utero in the second and third trimester of pregnancy: comparison with ultrasound. BJOG. 2001 May;108(5):519-26.
48.	Prayer D, Malinger G, Brugger PC, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49:671-80.
49.	AIUM practice guideline for the performance of fetal echocardiography. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(6):1067-1082.
50.	Rajiah P, Mak C, Dubinksy TJ, Dighe M. Ultrasound of fetal cardiac anomalies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(4):W747-760.
51.	AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of Fetal Echocardiography. J Ultrasound Med 2020;39:E5-E16.
52.	AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of Detailed Second- and Third-Trimester Diagnostic Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2019;38:3093-100.
53.	Ahman A, Axelsson O, Maras G, Rubertsson C, Sarkadi A, Lindgren P. Ultrasonographic fetal soft markers in a low-risk population: prevalence, association with trisomies and invasive tests. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(4):367-373.
54.	Nyberg DA, Luthy DA, Resta RG, Nyberg BC, Williams MA. Age-adjusted ultrasound risk assessment for fetal Down's syndrome during the second trimester: description of the method and analysis of 142 cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;12(1):8-14.
55.	Stefanovic V. Soft markers for aneuploidy following reassuring first trimester screening: what should be done? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(2):151-158.
56.	Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Goldberg JD. Second trimester prenatal ultrasound for the detection of pregnancies at increased risk of Down syndrome. Prenatal diagnosis 2007;27:535-44.
57.	Miguelez J, De Lourdes Brizot M, Liao AW, De Carvalho MH, Zugaib M. Second-trimester soft markers: relation to first-trimester nuchal translucency in unaffected pregnancies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 39(3):274-8, 2012 Mar.
58.	Odibo AO, Ghidini A. Role of the second-trimester 'genetic sonogram' for Down syndrome screen in the era of first-trimester screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(6):511-517.
59.	Norton ME. Follow-up of sonographically detected soft markers for fetal aneuploidy. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(5):365-369.
60.	Winter TC, Rose NC. How to Integrate Cell-Free DNA Screening With Sonographic Markers for Aneuploidy: An Update. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 2018;210:906-12.
61.	Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org, Norton ME, Biggio JR, Kuller JA, Blackwell SC. The role of ultrasound in women who undergo cell-free DNA screening. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 216(3):B2-B7, 2017 Mar.
62.	Ameratunga DM, Said JM, Reidy K, Palma-Dias R. Perinatal outcomes following the ultrasound diagnosis of echogenic bowel: an Australian perspective. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012;31(3):179-184.
63.	Buiter HD, Holswilder-Olde Scholtenhuis MA, Bouman K, van Baren R, Bilardo CM, Bos AF. Outcome of infants presenting with echogenic bowel in the second trimester of pregnancy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(3):F256-259.
64.	D'Addario V, Rossi AC. Neuroimaging of ventriculomegaly in the fetal period. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;17(6):310-318.
65.	Griffiths PD, Morris JE, Mason G, et al. Fetuses with ventriculomegaly diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy by in utero MR imaging: what happens in the third trimester? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(3):474-480.
66.	Manganaro L, Tomei A, Fierro F, et al. Fetal MRI as a complement to US in the evaluation of cleft lip and palate. Radiol Med. 2011;116(7):1134-1148.
67.	Zajicek M, Achiron R, Weisz B, Shrim A, Gindes L. Sonographic assessment of fetal secondary palate between 12 and 16 weeks of gestation using three-dimensional ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(13):1256-1259.
68.	Bornes M, Spaggiari E, Schmitz T, et al. Outcome and etiologies of fetal megacystis according to the gestational age at diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 33(12):1162-6, 2013 Dec.
69.	Capito C, Belarbi N, Paye Jaouen A, et al. Prenatal pelvic MRI: additional clues for assessment of urogenital obstructive anomalies. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(1):162-166.
70.	Devriendt A, Cassart M, Massez A, Donner C, Avni FE. Fetal kidneys: additional sonographic criteria of normal development. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(13):1248-1252.
71.	Nguyen HT, Benson CB, Bromley B, et al. Multidisciplinary consensus on the classification of prenatal and postnatal urinary tract dilation (UTD classification system). J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(6):982-998.
72.	Ganesan S, Brook MM, Silverman NH, Moon-Grady AJ. Prenatal findings in total anomalous pulmonary venous return: a diagnostic road map starts with obstetric screening views. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(7):1193-1207.
73.	Jorgensen DE, Vejlstrup N, Jorgensen C, et al. Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease in a low risk population undergoing first and second trimester screening. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(4):325-330.
74.	Zhou J, Zhou Q, Zhang M, Zeng S, Peng Q, Tian L. Echocardiographic follow-up and pregnancy outcome of fetuses with cardiac asymmetry at 18-22 weeks of gestation. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(9):900-907.
75.	Patenaude Y, Pugash D, Lim K, et al. RETIRED: The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the obstetric patient. [Review]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 36(4):349-63, 2014 04.
76.	Brugger PC, Prayer D. Development of gastroschisis as seen by magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(4):463-470.
77.	Khalil A, Morales-Rosello J, Morlando M, Bhide A, Papageorghiou A, Thilaganathan B. Widening of the femoral proximal diaphysis--metaphysis angle in fetuses with achondroplasia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):69-75.
78.	Benacerraf BB. The Sherlock Holmes approach to diagnosing fetal syndromes by ultrasound. [Review]. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 55(1):226-48, 2012 Mar.
79.	Kul S, Korkmaz HA, Cansu A, et al. Contribution of MRI to ultrasound in the diagnosis of fetal anomalies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 35(4):882-90, 2012 Apr.
80.	Lyons K, Cassady C, Mehollin-Ray A, Krishnamurthy R. Current Role of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Body Anomalies. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 36(4):310-23, 2015 Aug.
81.	Nemec SF, Horcher E, Kasprian G, et al. Tumor disease and associated congenital abnormalities on prenatal MRI. Eur J Radiol. 81(2):e115-22, 2012 Feb.
82.	Small M, Copel JA. Indications for fetal echocardiography. Pediatr Cardiol. 2004;25(3):210-222.
83.	Liu S, Joseph KS, Lisonkova S, et al. Association between maternal chronic conditions and congenital heart defects: a population-based cohort study. Circulation 2013;128:583-9.
84.	Amini H, Wikstrom J, Ahlstrom H, Axelsson O. Second trimester fetal magnetic resonance imaging improves diagnosis of non-central nervous system anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(4):380-389.
85.	Breysem L, Bosmans H, Dymarkowski S, et al. The value of fast MR imaging as an adjunct to ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. Eur Radiol. 2003 Jul;13(7):1538-48.
86.	Frates MC, Kumar AJ, Benson CB, Ward VL, Tempany CM. Fetal anomalies: comparison of MR imaging and US for diagnosis. Radiology. 2004;232(2):398-404.
87.	Santos XM, Papanna R, Johnson A, et al. The use of combined ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of fetal anomalies. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(5):402-407.
88.	Varavithya V, Phongkitkarun S, Raungrongmorakot K, Rujiwetpongstorn J, Chittacharoen A. The influence of MR imaging on changes in patient counseling in obstetric patients with suspected fetal anomalies by ultrasound. J Med Assoc Thai. 96(7):839-48, 2013 Jul.
89.	Bekiesinska-Figatowska M, Herman-Sucharska I, Romaniuk-Doroszewska A, Jaczynska R, Furmanek M, Bragoszewska H. Diagnostic problems in case of twin pregnancies: US vs. MRI study. J Perinat Med. 41(5):535-41, 2013 Sep 01.
90.	American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=23+&releaseId=2.
91.	American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Contrast-Manual.
92.	American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on MR Safety. 2024 ACR Manual on MR Safety. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Radiology-Safety/Manual-on-MR-Safety.pdf.
93.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.