Prenatal diagnosis and delivery of megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome

  1. Mokshal Porwal 1,
  2. Danyon Anderson 1,
  3. Abrahim Nagayoshi Razzak 1 and
  4. Garrett Fitzgerald 2
  1. 1 School of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA
  2. 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Garrett Fitzgerald; gafitzgerald@mcw.edu

Publication history

Accepted:10 Dec 2022
First published:26 Dec 2022
Online issue publication:26 Dec 2022

Case reports

Case reports are not necessarily evidence-based in the same way that the other content on BMJ Best Practice is. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice. Please check the date of publication.

Abstract

Hemimegalencephaly (HME) is a rare neurological diagnosis defined as hamartomatous overgrowth of one cerebral hemisphere. The hypothesised pathogenesis is due to an increased number or size of neural cells; however, the exact mechanism can vary widely, depending on the underlying aetiology. We report a case outlining the prenatal diagnostic process and obstetric considerations for delivering an infant with HME secondary to megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome. After diagnosis, our patient was induced and delivered at 37 weeks of gestation via operative vaginal delivery. To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the course from prenatal diagnosis through delivery of a fetus with HME.

Background

Hemimegalencephaly (HME) is a rare neurological condition defined as a hamartomatous overgrowth of one cerebral hemisphere.1 There is currently no epidemiological data regarding its prevalence and incidence. The pathogenesis is believed to occur due to an increased number or size of neural cells; however, the exact mechanism can vary, depending on the underlying aetiology.2 HME can occur in isolation or be linked to genetic syndromes. When encountered prenatally, a multidisciplinary approach is optimal. Here we describe the course from prenatal diagnosis through delivery of a fetus with HME secondary to megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome.

Case presentation

A G2P1001 vaginally parous woman (patient in her late 20s) presented at 19 weeks of gestation for a routine ultrasound anatomical survey. She had no obstetric complications in her prior pregnancy. The fetus had asymmetric left lateral ventriculomegaly, an echogenic mass in the left lateral ventricle and midline shift of the falx cerebri. Maternal quad screen (serum aneuploidy screening) and cell-free DNA test, tests conducted during pregnancies to assess for birth defect risks, revealed a low risk of aneuploidy. The patient was referred to a maternal–fetal medicine specialty clinic for further evaluation. Amniocentesis was not considered as the DNA test revealed a low risk of aneuploidy and because of patient preference.

Repeat ultrasound at 22 weeks of gestation showed unilateral left ventriculomegaly with midline shift. A 2.4×1.1 cm mass with blood flow in the left ventricle was also visualised. A cranial MRI of the fetus showed a hamartomatous overgrowth of the left cerebral hemisphere involving frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes with a prominent asymmetric germinal matrix (shown in figure 1A). These findings established a diagnosis of HME. Counselling was offered for termination of pregnancy at this time, given delivery and postdelivery risks; however, the parents did not want to consider pregnancy termination. The patient and patients’ family members attended multiple multidisciplinary screening visits from this stage of pregnancy. The multidisciplinary team included an ultrasound team, obstetrics/gynaecology, neonatology and neurology. During these visits, it was agreed that labour would proceed naturally, given her history of a successful vaginal birth. It was understood that on birth, the baby may have seizures and would need neurological intensive care support.

Figure 1

(A) MRI at 26 weeks of gestation, establishing a diagnosis of hemimegalencephaly. (B) Ultrasound at 36 weeks showing progression. Ultrasound abbreviations are biparietal diameter (BPD), gestinational age (GA), head circumference (HC), and actual ultrasound age (AUA).

Ultrasound measurements at 26 weeks of gestation revealed severe unilateral ventriculomegaly, measuring 2 cm with midline shift; head circumference was estimated at 267 mm. At 30 weeks of gestation, the left lateral ventricle measured 2.9 cm with midline shift and total head circumference estimated at 308 mm (>97th percentile). At this point, estimated fetal weight was in the 79th percentile. An ultrasound at 36 weeks of gestation is shown in figure 1B. Observing the trend of increasing head circumference, an induction of labour was planned at 37 weeks to optimise the opportunity for vaginal delivery.

The first stage of labour lasted approximately 6 hours and 10 min. Cervical ripening was accomplished with misoprostol, and labour was subsequently augmented with oxytocin/artificial rupture of membranes. The patient received an epidural for pain management. The second stage of labour lasted approximately 41 min. During this stage, the patient had a fever of 39.1°C and persistent category II fetal heart tracings with fetal tachycardia. There was no cephalopelvic disproportion. Due to the maternal fever and persistent category II fetal heart tracings with tachycardia, an operative delivery with vacuum assist was performed which successfully expedited the second stage. The decision to proceed with operative vaginal delivery in the setting of this known fetal neurological anomaly is not well described in the literature. As maternal outcomes were prioritised for clinical management, the team moved forward with vaginal delivery instead of an emergency caesarian section during the second stage of labour. Vacuum was used instead of forceps per ease of use by the provider. The fetal head presented in the left occiput position; a Kiwi Omni Cup (mushroom) vacuum cup was applied to the fetal head 2 cm posterior to the anterior fontanelle. With maternal effort, suction was established; traction adjustments then led to successful delivery. Umbilical artery pCO2 and pO2 were found to be 52.9 and 30.2 mm Hg, respectively, with a base excess of −5.6 mmol/L. The third stage of labour lasted approximately 10 min and the postpartum course was uncomplicated. No vascular malformations of the skin or cutis marmorata were noted on initial neonatal examination.

Investigations

In order to determine the aetiology of HME, a genetic test was performed which identified megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome due to a somatic variant in the PIK3CA–mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway.

Differential diagnosis

HME is primarily differentiated from its chief differential diagnoses of ventriculomegaly and macrocephaly by ultrasound. Fetuses with HME have an isolated increase in size of one hemisphere of the brain, whereas ventriculomegaly and macrocephaly have symmetrical increases in ventricular and head size, respectively. While megalencephaly and HME share similar brain overgrowth patterns, HME demonstrates unilateral hemispheric malformation/growth; this can be better visualised on a fetal MRI. While hydrocephalus (buildup of fluid in the ventricles of the brain) will present with similar ventriculomegaly findings on ultrasound scan, HME will demonstrate unilateral hamartomatous overgrowth visualised in fetal MRI. Diagnoses such as obstructing masses, intracranial haemorrhage, dural sinus thrombosis and arteriovenous malformations are difficult on fetal ultrasound but may be excluded by fetal MRI. Other congenital disorders such as Chiari II malformation, Dandy-Walker syndrome, and aqueductal stenosis demonstrate structural differences on MRI unique to the cerebellum or posterior neural structures. Findings such as dysplasias may be excluded through clinical presentation of facial features and X-ray findings of the cranial base/skull. Blood testing may be informative in the exclusion of infectious aetiologies. Lastly, rare syndromes such as Proteus syndrome may present with symptoms of HME. However, this can be excluded through genetic testing of AKT1 mutation or clinical presentation showing physical growth outside of the brain (extremities, etc).

Outcome and follow-up

The neonate was born with a length of 48.7 cm, weight of 2.973 kg and Apgar scores of 8 and 9 at 1 and 5 min, respectively. She was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit for 5 days and 12 hours, where seizures were noted with frequent left frontal and right parietal interictal epileptiform discharges on electroencephalogram (EEG). Seizures were diagnosed during her first few hours of life, and she was subsequently treated with phenobarbital at 4 mg/kg/day (6 mg every 12 hours). The patient had no respiratory morbidity during the newborn period and was on room air throughout her stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. The neonate was followed up with abdominal ultrasound, MRI of the head, EEG, ECG, echocardiogram, hearing screening, and laboratory tests including direct Coombs/gases test. Alongside the hemimegaloencephaly findings on MRI, tympanometry findings suggested bilateral middle ear dysfunction. Genetic analysis confirmed the neonate developed megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome from a somatic variant in the PIK3CA–mTOR pathway. In the month and a half since birth, the neonate failed hearing screening and has had continued seizures, which have been managed with phenobarbital.

Discussion

While there is ample research describing the neurological sequelae of HME,3 there is scarce literature describing the obstetric considerations and delivery process. We describe the full course of prenatal diagnosis and management of a patient with HME who was successfully delivered of a child via operative vaginal delivery at 37 weeks of gestation.

Fetal MRI has been shown to optimally confirm suspicious clinical findings from obstetric ultrasound scans.1 Representative ultrasound findings include unilateral ventriculomegaly with asymmetry and midline shift. Oftentimes, a mass-like abnormality may be noticed, particularly in the ventricular region.1 Once a diagnosis is confirmed, serial fetal assessment with attention to biometric trends informs obstetric management impacting both maternal and fetal patient health.

An Ovid MEDLINE literature search strategy revealed 68 English language human citations concerning prenatal macrocephaly and delivery. Two citations reported delivery outcomes and suggestions for macrocephaly. A study in Southwest Nigeria found that macrocephalic infants, defined as greater than 2 SDs above an age-matched and sex-matched reference population, were more likely to be delivered via an emergency caesarean section.4 An older review in 1996 suggests that fetuses with hydrocephalus and concomitant macrocephaly should be delivered via caesarean section.5 However, no studies offered guidance on delivery route and timing specifically for HME.

While no guidelines for HME exist, we speculate that chances of successful vaginal delivery are primarily limited by the increased fetal head circumference. Large head circumferences (>39 cm) are associated with complicated labour and increased odds of operative vaginal delivery or caesarean section.6 Elective early-term delivery is associated with a modest increased risk of composite adverse neonatal outcomes.7 Balancing neonatal risks of delivering early term versus risks of delaying delivery (eg, laboured caesarean due to cephalopelvic disproportion and stillbirth) requires critical calculation and is best made with a shared-decision model.8 In this case, our patient had the benefit of serial measurements to document the acceleration of cranial measurements. Additionally, her previous term vaginal delivery of a 3.1 kg newborn provided confidence for a successful trial of labour. It is also important to note that an emergency caesarean section was not performed in the second stage of labour in this case as caesarean section is known to have a higher morbidity profile compared with vaginal delivery. There is theoretical concern that operative delivery may adversely impact the course of a neonate with neurological complications or reduce the likelihood of success for operative delivery. This concern may lead obstetric providers to select delivery methods such as caesarean sections associated with increased morbidity for the mother. While firm conclusions may not be drawn from a single case report, our case demonstrates that operative delivery of a fetus with a neurological anomaly may be considered, may offer some obstetric benefit to the mother and may not result in increased morbidity for the neonate.

It is important to include expectations for paediatric outcome as a part of obstetric decisions that affect the mother and newborn. Infants with HME must be monitored closely for neurological sequelae. Genetic testing can help determine any underlying syndromes and prognosis. The most common clinical findings of affected infants are intractable epilepsy, psychomotor sequelae and contralateral motor deficit.3 Most symptomatic cases are managed via surgical hemispherectomy9 or temporising endovascular embolic hemispherectomy.10 Rarely, some patients may be stable on antiepileptic therapy11 and, more recently, mTOR inhibitors such as rapamycin.12 The patient was diagnosed with megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome and will likely experience lifelong intellectual disability and severe functional impairment.

Learning points

  • Given the rarity of fetuses diagnosed with hemimegalencephaly (HME), there are no established delivery guidelines for this diagnosis.

  • Chances of successful vaginal delivery are primarily limited by the increased fetal head circumference in HME.

  • Balancing neonatal risks of early-term delivery versus risks of delaying delivery requires critical calculation and is best made with a shared-decision model of a multidisciplinary team approach.

  • Neurological sequalae, such as intractable seizures, are common with HME, and early diagnosis/intervention is indicated to reduce long-term harm.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Footnotes

  • Contributors MP and GF were responsible for generation of the project idea. MP and DA were responsible for drafting the initial manuscript. ANR was responsible for subsequent edits to the initial draft, formatting and processing. GF was responsible for general oversight, patient care and providing expertise on the topic. All authors contributed significantly to writing and editing the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer