Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Benton, SJ; McCowan, LM; Heazell, AEP; Grynspan, D; Hutcheon, JA; Senger, C; Burke, O; Chan, Y; Harding, JE; Yockell-Lelièvre, J; Hu, Y; Chappell, LC; Griffin, MJ; Shennan, AH; Magee, LA; Gruslin, A; von Dadelszen, P (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Developmental Biology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reproductive Medicine
Introduction: Discriminating between placentally-mediated fetal growth restriction and constitutionally-small fetuses is a challenge in obstetric practice. Placental growth factor (PlGF), measurable in the maternal circulation, may have this discriminatory capacity. Methods: Plasma PlGF was measured in women presenting with suspected fetal growth restriction (FGR; ultrasound fetal abdominal circumference <10th percentile for gestational age) at sites in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. When available, placenta tissue underwent histopathological examination for lesions indicating placental dysfunction, blinded to PlGF and clinical outcome. Lesions were evaluated according to pre-specified severity criteria and an overall severity grade was assigned (0–3, absent to severe). Low PlGF (concentration <5th percentile for gestational age) to identify placental FGR (severity grade ≥2) was assessed and compared with routine parameters for fetal assessment. For all cases, the relationship between PlGF and the sampling-to-delivery interval was determined. Results: Low PlGF identified placental FGR with an area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve of 0.96 [95% CI 0.93–0.98], 98.2% [95% CI 90.5–99.9] sensitivity and 75.1% [95% CI 67.6–81.7] specificity. Negative and positive predictive values were 99.2% [95% CI 95.4–99.9] and 58.5% [95% CI 47.9–68.6], respectively. Low PlGF outperformed gestational age, abdominal circumference and umbilical artery resistance index in predicting placental FGR. Very low PlGF (<12 pg/mL) was associated with shorter sampling-to-delivery intervals than normal PlGF (13 vs. 29.5 days, P<0.0001). Discussion: Low PlGF identifies small fetuses with significant underlying placental pathology and is a promising tool for antenatal discrimination of FGR from fetuses who are constitutionally-small.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] A.C.G. Breeze, C.C. Lees, Prediction and perinatal outcomes of fetal growth restriction, Semin. Fet Neonat. Med. 12 (5) (2007) 383e397.
    • [2] T.J. Garite, R. Clark, J.A. Thorp, Intrauterine growth restriction increases morbidity and mortality among premature neonates, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 191 (2) (2004) 481e487.
    • [3] H.L. Halliday, Neonatal management and long-term sequelae, Best. Prac. Res. Clin. Obstet. 23 (6) (2009) 871e880.
    • [4] Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists UK, Green-top Guideline No. 31: the Investigation and Management of the Small-for Gestational-age Fetus, 2013. www.rcog.org.uk/clinical-guidance.
    • [5] F. Figueras, E. Gratacos, Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol, Fetal Diagn. Ther. 36 (2) (2014) 86e98.
    • [6] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Practice bulletin number 134: fetal growth restriction, Obstet. Gynecol. 121 (2013) 1122e1133.
    • [7] J. Zhang, M. Merialdi, L.D. Platt, M.S. Kramer, Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 202 (6) (2010) 522e528.
    • [8] P.W. Soothill, C.S. Bobrow, R. Holmes, Small for gestational age is not diagnosis, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 13 (1999) 225e228.
    • [9] S.J. Benton, Y. Hu, X. Fang, et al., Can placental growth factor identify placental intrauterine growth restriction in small for gestational age fetuses? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 206 (2) (2012) 163 e1-7.
    • [10] L.A. Magee, A. Pels, M. Helewa, E. Rey, P. von Dadelszen, SOGC clinical practice guideline: diagnosis, evaluation, and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 36 (5) (2014) 416e438.
    • [11] G. Acharya, T. Wilsgaard, G.K.R. Berntsen, J.M. Maltau, T. Kiserud, Reference ranges for serial measurements of umbilical artery Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192 (2005) 937e944.
    • [12] M. Kramer, R. Platt, S. Wen, et al., A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age, Pediatrics 108 (2) (2001) e35e42.
    • [13] L.M.E. McCowan, J.E. Harding, A.B. Roberts, et al., A pilot randomized controlled trial of two regimens of fetal surveillance for small-for-gestationalage fetuses with normal results of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 182 (1) (2000) 81e86.
    • [14] L. McCowan, J. Harding, A. Roberts, et al., Administration of low dose aspirin to mothers with small for gestational age fetuses and abnormal umbilical Doppler studies to increase birthweight: a randomised double-blind controlled trial, BJOG 106 (1999) 647e651.
    • [15] L.M.E. McCowan, J. Harding, A.W. Stewart, Customised birthweight centiles predict SGA pregnancies with perinatal morbidity, BJOG 112 (2005) 1026e1033.
    • [16] L.M.E. McCowan, J.E. Harding, A.W. Stewart, Umbilical artery Doppler studies in small for gestational age babies reflect disease severity, BJOG 107 (2000) 916e925.
    • [17] R.L. Guaran, P. Wein, M. Sheedy, J. Walstab, N.A. Beischer, Update of growth percentiles for infants born in an Australian population, Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 34 (1994) 39e50.
    • [18] M. Griffin, P. Seed, L. Webster, et al., Diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor and ultrasound parameters to predict the small-for-gestational-age infant in women presenting with reduced symphysis-fundal height measurement, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 46 (2) (2015) 182e190.
    • [19] S.J. Benton, Y. Hu, X. Fang, et al., Placental growth factor as a diagnostic test for pre-eclampsia: A performance comparison of two immunoassays, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 205 (5) (2011) 469 e1-8.
    • [20] C. Saffer, G. Olson, K.A. Boggess, et al., Determination of placental growth factor (PlGF) in healthy pregnant women without signs or symptoms of preeclampsia, Pregnancy Hypertens. 3 (2) (2013) 124e132.
    • [21] L.K. Warrander, G. Batra, G. Bernatavicius, et al., Maternal perception of reduced fetal movements is associated with altered placental structure and function, PLoS One 7 (4) (2012) e34851, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0034851.
    • [22] R.W. Redline, I. Ariel, R.N. Baergen, et al., Fetal vascular obstructive lesions: nosology and reproducibility of placental reaction patterns, Pediatr. Dev. Pathol. 7 (5) (2004) 443e452.
    • [23] R.W. Redline, R. Boyd, V. Campbell, et al., Maternal vascular underperfusion: nosology and reproducibility of placental reaction patterns, Pediatr. Dev. Pathol. 7 (3) (2004) 237e249.
    • [24] R.W. Redline, O. Faye-Petersen, D. Heller, et al., Amniotic infection syndrome: nosology and reproducibility of placental reactions patterns, Pediatr. Dev. Pathol. 6 (5) (2003) 435e448.
    • [25] R.N. Taylor, J. Grimwood, R.S. Taylor, et al., Longitudinal serum concentrations of placental growth factor: Evidence for abnormal placental angiogenesis in pathologic pregnancies, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 188 (1) (2003) 177e182.
    • [26] R.J. Levine, C. Lam, C. Qian, et al., Soluble endoglin and other circulating antiangiogenic factors in preeclampsia, N. Engl. J. Med. 355 (10) (2006) 992e1005.
    • [27] R.W. Powers, J.M. Roberts, D.A. Plymire, et al., Low placental growth factor across pregnancy identifies a subset of women with preterm preeclampsia, Hypertension. 60 (1) (2012) 239e246.
    • [28] C.J. Robinson, D.D. Johnson, E.Y. Chang, D.M. Armstrong, W. Wang, Evaluation of placental growth factor and soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 receptor levels in mild and severe preeclampsia, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 195 (1) (2006) 255e259.
    • [29] L.C. Chappell, S. Duckworth, P.T. Seed, et al., Diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor in women with suspected preeclampsia: a prospective multicenter study, Circulation 128 (19) (2013) 2121e2131.
    • [30] W. Wallner, R. Sengenberger, R. Strick, et al., Angiogenic growth factors in maternal and fetal serum in pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction, Clin. Sci. Lond. 112 (1) (2007) 51e57.
    • [31] R. Levine, C. Lam, C. Qian, et al., Soluble endoglin and other circulating angiogenic factors in normotensive pregnancy with fetal growth restriction, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 193 (6) (2005) 229e235.
    • [32] C.Y.T. Ong, A.W. Liao, A.M. Cacho, K. Spencer, K.H. Nicolaides, First-trimester maternal serum levels of placenta growth factor as predictor preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 98 (4) (2001) 608e611.
    • [33] R. Romero, J.K. Nien, J. Espinoza, et al., A longitudinal study of angiogenic (placental growth factor) and anti-angiogenic (soluble endoglin and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1) factors in normal pregnancy and patients destined to develop preeclampsia and deliver a small for gestational age neonate, J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 21 (1) (2008) 9e23.
    • [34] S. Triunfo, S. Lobmaier, M. Parra-Saavedra, et al., Angiogenic factors at diagnosis of late-onset small-for-gestational age and histological placenta underperfusion, Placenta 35 (6) (2014) 398e403.
    • [35] T. Chaiworapongsa, R. Romero, A.E. Whitten, et al., The use of angiogenic biomarkers in maternal blood to identify which SGA fetuses will require a preterm delivery and mothers who will develop pre-eclampsia, J Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 25 (2015 Aug) 1e15 [Epub ahead of print].
    • [36] I. Ptacek, A. Smith, A. Garrod, et al., Quantitative assessment of placental morphology may identify specific causes of stillbirth, BMC Clin. Pathol. 16 (1) (2016) 1e12.
    • [37] R. Redline, The clinical implications of placental diagnoses, Semin. Perinatol. 39 (1) (2015) 2e8.
    • [38] P.J. Dutton, L.K. Warrander, S.A. Roberts, et al., Predictors of poor perinatal outcome following maternal perception of reduced fetal movements e a prospective cohort study, PLoS One 7 (7) (2012) e39784, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0039784.
    • [39] L.E. Higgins, E.D. Johnstone, J. Myers, C.P. Sibley, A.E.P. Heazell, Placental assessment aids identification of pregnancies with reduced fetal movement who experience adverse outcome, BJOG. (2015). Supplement.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article