E-ISSN: 2619-9467

Contents    Cover    Publication Date: 08 Jul 2021
Year 2021 - Volume 31 - Issue 2

Open Access

Peer Reviewed

365 Viewed62 Downloaded

Diagnostic Profile of Corpus Callosum Anomalies at a Tertiary Center: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

Full Text PDF  
J Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2021;31(2):53-9
DOI: 10.5336/jcog.2021-81985
Article Language: EN
Copyright Ⓒ 2020 by Türkiye Klinikleri. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Objective: This study aimed to define the frequency and type of additional accompanying anomalies in cases with various anomalies of the corpus callosum (ACCs) in our tertiary center in the last 8 years. Material and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included the data of 152 cases of prenatally diagnosed ACCs in a tertiary referral center between October 2012 and November 2020. We evaluated central nervous system and other organ system structural abnormalities, chromosomal abnormalities, and syndromes accompanying in non-isolated forms. Results: During the study period, a total of 152 cases with callosal anomaly were diagnosed throughout the study course in a population of 117,450 live births, resulting in an overall prevalence of 12.9 per 10,000 live births. Of the 152 cases ascertained, 105 (69%) were total agenesis, 38 (25%) were partial agenesis, and 9 (6%) were hypoplasia of the corpus callosum. Of these 152 cases, 80 (52.6%) had isolated ACC and the remaining 72 (47.4%) cases had at least one associated anomaly, including chromosomal anomalies, recognized syndromes, and multiple congenital abnormalities. Conclusion: ACCs are clinically and etiologically heterogeneous, and prenatal diagnosis is possible. Even in isolated cases, the neurodevelopmental prognosis is uncertain and mostly associated with other structural abnormalities, chromosomal and genetic diseases. Due to the underlying etiological cause, accompanying additional anomalies and uncertainty regarding developmental outcomes, chromosomal, syndromic, and additional structural disorders may be clues in antenatal ultrasonographic observation in ACC cases should be investigated with the more detailed sonographic examination and genetic tests.
  1. Mangione R, Fries N, Godard P, Capron C, Mirlesse V, Lacombe D, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome following prenatal diagnosis of an isolated anomaly of the corpus callosum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(3):290-5. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  2. Paul LK, Brown WS, Adolphs R, Tyszka JM, Richards LJ, Mukherjee P, et al. Agenesis of the corpus callosum: genetic, developmental and functional aspects of connectivity. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8(4):287-99. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  3. Dobyns WB. Absence makes the search grow longer. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;58(1):7-16. [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  4. Schell-Apacik CC, Wagner K, Bihler M, Ertl-Wagner B, Heinrich U, Klopocki E, et al. Agenesis and dysgenesis of the corpus callosum: clinical, genetic and neuroimaging findings in a series of 41 patients. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(19):2501-11. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  5. Behram M, Sezer S, Doğan Y, Acar Z, Gedik Özköse Z, Gezdirici A, et al. Does fetal MR alter the management of pregnancy in the diagnosis of isolated corpus callosum agenesis? Perinatal Journal. 2020;28(2):113-9. [Crossref] 
  6. Rüland AM, Berg C, Gembruch U, Geipel A. Prenatal diagnosis of anomalies of the corpus callosum over a 13-year period. Ultraschall Med. 2016;37(6):598-603. Erratum in: Ultraschall Med. 2016;37(6):E1. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  7. Santo S, D'Antonio F, Homfray T, Rich P, Pilu G, Bhide A, et al. Counseling in fetal medicine: agenesis of the corpus callosum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(5):513-21. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  8. Volpe P, Paladini D, Resta M, Stanziano A, Salvatore M, Quarantelli M, et al. Characteristics, associations and outcome of partial agenesis of the corpus callosum in the fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(5):509-16. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  9. Glass HC, Shaw GM, Ma C, Sherr EH. Agenesis of the corpus callosum in California 1983-2003: a population-based study. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(19):2495-500. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  10. Ballardini E, Marino P, Maietti E, Astolfi G, Neville AJ. Prevalence and associated factors for agenesis of corpus callosum in Emilia Romagna (1981-2015). Eur J Med Genet. 2018; 61(9):524-30. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  11. Pilu G, Buyukkurt S, Malinger G. Anomalies of ventral induction. In: Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Pilu G, Malinger G, eds. Ultrasonography of the Prenatal Brain. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY; 2012. p.227-45. [Link] 
  12. Volpe P, Campobasso G, De Robertis V, Rembouskos G. Disorders of prosencephalic development. Prenatal Diagnosis: Published in Affiliation With the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. 2009;29(4):340-54. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  13. Barkovich A. Congenital malformations of the brain and skull. Pediatric Neuroimaging. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p.291-339. [Link] 
  14. Szabó N, Gergev G, Kóbor J, Bereg E, Túri S, Sztriha L. Corpus callosum anomalies: birth pre valence and clinical spectrum in Hungary. Pediatr Neurol. 2011;44(6):420-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  15. Palmer EE, Mowat D. Agenesis of the corpus callosum: a clinical approach to diagnosis. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014; 166C(2):184-97. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  16. Malinger G, Paladini D, Haratz KK, Monteagudo A, Pilu GL, Timor-Tritsch IE. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system. Part 1: performance of screening examination and indications for targeted neuro sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56(3):476-84. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  17. Malinger G, Zakut H. The corpus callosum: normal fetal development as shown by transvaginal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161(5):1041-3. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  18. Oğlak SC, Bademkıran MH, Obut M. Predictor variables in the success of slow-release dinoprostone used for cervical ripening in intrauterine growth restriction pregnancies. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020;49(6): 101739. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  19. Jeret JS, Serur D, Wisniewski K, Fisch C. Frequency of agenesis of the corpus callosum in the developmentally disabled population as determined by computerized tomography. Pediatr Neurosci. 1985-1986;12(2):101-3. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  20. Sotiriadis A, Makrydimas G. Neurodevelopment after prenatal diagnosis of isolated agenesis of the corpus callosum: an integrative review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4): 337.e1-5. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  21. Ramelli G, Zanda N, Wyttenbach M, Bronz L, Schnider A. The prognosis of agenesis of the corpus callosum might mostly be favourable. Swiss Med Wkly. 2006;136(25-26):404-5. [PubMed] 
  22. Moes P, Schilmoeller K, Schilmoeller G. Physical, motor, sensory and developmental features associated with agenesis of the corpus callosum. Child Care Health Dev. 2009;35(5): 656-72. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  23. Isapof A, Kieffer V, Sacco S, Billette de Villemeur T, Gelot A, Garel C, et al. Impact du dépistage anténatal des agénésies du corps calleux sur le devenir des grossesses. Etude de 155 dossiers de 2000 à 2006 [Impact of prenatal corpus callosum agenesis diagnosis on pregnancy outcome. Evaluation of 155 cases between 2000 and 2006]. Arch Pediatr. 2010;17(3):226-32. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  24. Rouleau C, Gasner A, Bigi N, Couture A, Perez MJ, Blanchet P, et al. Prevalence and timing of pregnancy termination for brain malformations. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96(5):F360-4. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  25. Fratelli N, Papageorghiou AT, Prefumo F, Bakalis S, Homfray T, Thilaganathan B. Outcome of prenatally diagnosed agenesis of the corpus callosum. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27(6): 512-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  26. Kitova TT, Kitov B, Milkov D, Gaigi S. Postnatally diagnosed agenesis of corpus callosum in fetuses. Fetal Pediatr Pathol. 2014;33(4): 239-43. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  27. Stoll C, Dott B, Roth MP. Associated anomalies in cases with agenesis of the corpus callosum. Am J Med Genet A. 2019;179(10): 2101-11. Erratum in: Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182(1):269. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  28. de Wit MC, Boekhorst F, Mancini GM, Smit LS, Groenenberg IAL, Dudink J, et al. Advanced genomic testing may aid in counseling of isolated agenesis of the corpus callosum on prenatal ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(12):1191-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  29. de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LC, Van Opstal D, Galjaard RJ, Go AT. Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(2):139-46. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  30. Bedeschi MF, Bonaglia MC, Grasso R, Pellegri A, Garghentino RR, Battaglia MA, et al. Agenesis of the corpus callosum: clinical and genetic study in 63 young patients. Pediatr Neurol. 2006;34(3):186-93. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  31. Ghi T, Carletti A, Contro E, Cera E, Falco P, Tagliavini G, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and outcome of partial agenesis and hypoplasia of the corpus callosum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(1):35-41. [Crossref]  [PubMed]