Re-evaluation of risk for Down syndrome by means of the combined test in pregnant women of 35 years or more

First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive and false negative screening tests (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester ultrasound markers alone, and in combination with first trimester serum tests for the detection of Down's syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out extensive literature searches including MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), and The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (the Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7). We checked reference lists and published review articles for additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating tests of first trimester ultrasound screening, alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests (up to 14 weeks' gestation) for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 126 studies (152 publications) involving 1,604,040 fetuses (including 8454 Down's syndrome cases). Studies were generally good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Sixty test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of 11 different ultrasound markers (nuchal translucency (NT), nasal bone, ductus venosus Doppler, maxillary bone length, fetal heart rate, aberrant right subclavian artery, frontomaxillary facial angle, presence of mitral gap, tricuspid regurgitation, tricuspid blood flow and iliac angle 90 degrees); 12 serum tests (inhibin A, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), free beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (ßhCG), total hCG, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), disintegrin and metalloprotease 12 (ADAM 12), placental growth factor (PlGF), placental growth hormone (PGH), invasive trophoblast antigen (ITA) (synonymous with hyperglycosylated hCG), growth hormone binding protein (GHBP) and placental protein 13 (PP13)); and maternal age. The most frequently evaluated serum markers in combination with ultrasound markers were PAPP-A and free ßhCG.Comparisons of the 10 most frequently evaluated test strategies showed that a combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy significantly outperformed ultrasound markers alone (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). In both direct and indirect comparisons, the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy showed superior diagnostic accuracy to an NT and maternal age test strategy (P < 0.0001). Based on the indirect comparison of all available studies for the two tests, the sensitivity (95% confidence interval) estimated at a 5% FPR for the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy (69 studies; 1,173,853 fetuses including 6010 with Down's syndrome) was 87% (86 to 89) and for the NT and maternal age test strategy (50 studies; 530,874 fetuses including 2701 Down's syndrome pregnancies) was 71% (66 to 75). Combinations of NT with other ultrasound markers, PAPP-A and free ßhCG were evaluated in one or two studies and showed sensitivities of more than 90% and specificities of more than 95%.High-risk populations (defined before screening was done, mainly due to advanced maternal age of 35 years or more, or previous pregnancies affected with Down's syndrome) showed lower detection rates compared to routine screening populations at a 5% FPR. Women who miscarried in the over 35 group were more likely to have been offered an invasive test to verify a negative screening results, whereas those under 35 were usually not offered invasive testing for a negative screening result. Pregnancy loss in women under 35 therefore leads to under-ascertainment of screening results, potentially missing a proportion of affected pregnancies and affecting test sensitivity. Conversely, for the NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy, detection rates and false positive rates increased with maternal age in the five studies that provided data separately for the subset of women aged 35 years or more.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Test strategies that combine ultrasound markers with serum markers, especially PAPP-A and free ßhCG, and maternal age were significantly better than those involving only ultrasound markers (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone. They detect about nine out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. Although the absence of nasal bone appeared to have a high diagnostic accuracy, only five out of 10 affected Down's pregnancies were detected at a 1% FPR.

Combined screening test for trisomy 21 - is it as efficient as we believe?

OBJECTIVES

To compare two first-trimester screening strategies: traditional combined screening and the one based on ultrasound markers only. We investigated the effect of maternal age (MA) on the screening performance of both of these strategies.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study based on a non-selected mixed-risk population of 11,653 women referred for first-trimester screening. The study population was divided in two groups: combined screening (CS) and ultrasound-based screening (US). Absolute risk was calculated to determine the influence of MA on screening performance.

RESULTS

The CS arm comprised 5145 subjects including 51 cases of trisomy 21 (T21), and the US arm comprised 5733 subjects including 87 subjects with T21. Seven hundred and seventy-five subjects were excluded from the study. For a false positive rate (FPR) of 3%, the detection rate (DR) of T21 in CS arm was 78% vs. 90% in US arm. For 5% FPR, DR was 84% and 94% in CS and US arm, respectively. MA had an influence on DR positive rates in CS: both DR and FPR for T21 increased with advance in MA.

CONCLUSIONS

The US protocol showed higher DR of T21 compared to the CS one. It may be considered as a viable alternative to CS for T21 where access to biochemical testing is limited.

Should cell-free fetal DNA be included in first trimester screening (FTS) for common trisomy? A possible scenario on 6697 women screened over 10 years

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to determine the performance of the first trimester screening (FTS) test in a general obstetrics population. Cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetic model based on implementation of the FTS test by cell-free fetal (cff) DNA was calculated.

METHODS

A total of 6697 women were screened using FTS test. A two-step strategy based upon nuchal translucency, serum screening and ultrasound assessment of nasal bone (NB) was applied. Three groups were identified (high-risk: >1:250; intermediate-risk: 1:251-1:999 and low-risk group: <1:1000). Women at intermediate-risk (1:251-1:999) underwent NB assessment and recalculation of individual risk. All women at high-risk were offered fetal karyotyping.

RESULTS

A total of 321 women (4.8%) resulted at high-risk while 480 women (7.1%) with intermediate-risk underwent assessment of the NB, which was absent in 15 fetuses. Overall, 54 aneuploidies were detected for a 96.4% sensitivity, a 96.1% specificity, a 99.9% negative predictive value and a false positive rate of 4.8%. Audit was conducted on a yearly basis and lost to follow up was 0.47% (32 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

Public health system would not be able to cover the cost of including cff DNA in women undergoing first trimester screening on universal basis. However, assuming a possible scenario based on implementation of FTS by cff DNA in women at high-risk would result in a 6-fold reduction in the number of invasive procedures while avoiding two false negative results (trisomy 21) that were diagnosed in women with intermediate-risk using current screening strategy by combined test.

Beyond Trisomy 21: Additional Chromosomal Anomalies Detected through Routine Aneuploidy Screening

Prenatal screening is often misconstrued by patients as screening for trisomy 21 alone; however, other chromosomal anomalies are often detected. This study aimed to systematically review the literature and use diagnostic meta-analysis to derive pooled detection and false positive rates for aneuploidies other than trisomy 21 with different prenatal screening tests. Non-invasive prenatal testing had the highest detection (DR) and lowest false positive (FPR) rates for trisomy 13 (DR: 90.3%; FPR: 0.2%), trisomy 18 (DR: 98.1%; FPR: 0.2%), and 45,X (DR: 92.2%; FPR: 0.1%); however, most estimates came from high-risk samples. The first trimester combined test also had high DRs for all conditions studied (trisomy 13 DR: 83.1%; FPR: 4.4%; trisomy 18 DR: 91.9%; FPR: 3.5%; 45,X DR: 70.1%; FPR: 5.4%; triploidy DR: 100%; FPR: 6.3%). Second trimester triple screening had the lowest DRs and highest FPRs for all conditions (trisomy 13 DR: 43.9%; FPR: 8.1%; trisomy 18 DR: 70.5%; FPR: 3.3%; 45,X DR: 77.2%; FPR: 9.3%). Prenatal screening tests differ in their ability to accurately detect chromosomal anomalies. Patients should be counseled about the ability of prenatal screening to detect anomalies other than trisomy 21 prior to undergoing screening.

Effect of first-trimester ultrasound examination for chromosomal aberrations in women undergoing amniocentesis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of first-trimester ultrasound examination for chromosomal aberrations in women who underwent amniocentesis.

METHODS

To evaluate trends in the indications of amniocentesis and the number of chromosomal aberrations, we reviewed all amniotic fluid samples from genetic amniocentesis processed by the Tama-Nagayama Hospital of Nippon Medical School from 1991 through 2005. The referral indications included first-trimester abnormal ultrasound finding.

RESULTS

A total of 1,054 women underwent genetic aminiocentesis in the first- to early second-trimester, and 1,063 amniotic samples were processed. The overall rate of chromosomal aberrations was 3.3% (35 of 1,063 samples), and the rate of aberrations remained unchanged during the study period. The number of cases with abnormal ultrasound finding increased from 5 (1.1%) in the first 5-year period to 46 (19.4%) in the last 5-year period (p<0.01). In contrast, the number of amniotic fluid samples per year tended to decline during the study period.

CONCLUSION

First-trimester ultrasound examination had a significant effect on our amniocentesis cases. The application of first-trimester ultrasound examination may be associated with a lower rate of invasive genetic testing.