Hyperglycosylated-hCG (h-hCG) and Down syndrome screening in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy

Hyperglycosylated-hCG: Its Role in Trophoblast Invasion and Intrauterine Growth Restriction

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is produced by the placenta and its roles have been studied for over a century, being the first known pregnancy-related protein. Although its main role is to stimulate the production of progesterone by corpus luteal cells, hCG does not represent just one biologically active molecule, but a group of at least five variants, produced by different cells and each with different functions. The hyperglycosylated variant of hCG (H-hCG) plays a key role in trophoblast invasion, placental development and fetal growth. During trophoblast invasion, H-hCG promotes extravillous cytotrophoblast cells to infiltrate the decidua, and also to colonize and remodel the spiral arteries in to low resistance, larger-diameter vessels. As fetal growth is heavily reliant on nutrient availability, impaired trophoblast invasion and remodeling of the uterine arteries, leads to a defective perfusion of the placenta and fetal growth restriction. Understanding the function of H-hCG in the evolution of the placenta might unveil new ways to manage and treat fetal growth restriction.

hCG and Its Disruption by Environmental Contaminants during Human Pregnancy

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone of considerable importance in the establishment, promotion and maintenance of human pregnancy. It has been clearly demonstrated that hCG exerts multiple endocrine, paracrine and autocrine actions on a variety of gestational and non-gestational cells and tissues. These actions are directed to promote trophoblast invasiveness and differentiation, placental growth, angiogenesis in uterine vasculature, hormone production, modulation of the immune system at the maternal-fetal interface, inhibition of myometrial contractility as well as fetal growth and differentiation. In recent years, considerable interest has been raised towards the biological effects of environmental contaminants, particularly endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Emerging evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to selected EDCs can have a deleterious impact on the fetus and long-lasting consequences also in adult life. The results of the in vitro effects of commonly found EDCs, particularly Bisphenol A (BPA) and para-Nonylphenol (p-NP), indicate that these substances can alter hCG production and through this action could exert their fetal damage, suggesting that hCG could represent and become a potentially useful clinical biomarker of an inappropriate prenatal exposure to these substances.

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.

Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down's syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

As the chromosomal examination of foetal cells for the prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome (DS) carries a risk of inducing miscarriage, serum screening tests are commonly used before invasive procedures. In this study, a total of 374 records from PubMed, EMBASE, and the ISI Science Citation Index databases were reviewed. As a result of duplication, insufficient data, and inappropriate article types, 18 independent articles containing 183,998 samples were used in the final systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the serum triple screening test (STS) and the integrated screening test (INS). Data extracted from the selected studies were statistically analysed, and the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using specific software. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the curve for the STS were 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.73-0.81), 0.94 (0.94-0.94), 9.78 (6.87-13.93), 0.26 (0.22-0.31), 44.72 (30.77-65.01), and 0.9064, respectively. For the INS, these values were 0.93 (0.90-0.95), 0.93 (0.93-0.93), 22.38 (12.47-40.14), 0.08 (0.05-0.11), 289.81 (169.08-496.76), and 0.9781, respectively. These results indicate that the INS exhibits better diagnostic value for DS. However, further research is needed to identify other biomarkers to improve prenatal screening tests.

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.Noninvasive 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. However, no test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester serum markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, both as individual markers and as combinations of markers. Accuracy is described by the proportion of fetuses with Down's syndrome detected by screening before birth (sensitivity or detection rate) and the proportion of women with a low risk (normal) screening test result who subsequently had a baby unaffected by Down's syndrome (specificity).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of 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), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (Archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did forward citation searching ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We also searched reference lists and published review articles.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in which all women from a given population had one or more index test(s) compared to a reference standard (either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection). Both consecutive series and diagnostic case-control study designs were included. Randomised trials where individuals were randomised to different screening strategies and all verified using a reference standard were also eligible for inclusion. Studies in which test strategies were compared head-to-head either in the same women, or between randomised groups were identified for inclusion in separate comparisons of test strategies. We excluded studies if they included less than five Down's syndrome cases, or more than 20% of participants were not followed up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data as test positive or 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 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods or random-effects logistic regression methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy as appropriate. Analyses of studies allowing direct and indirect comparisons between tests were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 studies (reported in 68 publications) involving 204,759 pregnancies (including 2113 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. We evaluated 78 test combinations formed from combinations of 18 different tests, with or without maternal age; ADAM12 (a disintegrin and metalloprotease), AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), inhibin, PAPP-A (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), free βhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), PlGF (placental growth factor), SP1 (Schwangerschafts protein 1), total hCG, progesterone, uE3 (unconjugated oestriol), GHBP (growth hormone binding protein), PGH (placental growth hormone), hyperglycosylated hCG, ProMBP (proform of eosinophil major basic protein), hPL (human placental lactogen), (free αhCG, and free ßhCG to AFP ratio. Direct comparisons between two or more tests were made in 27 studies.Meta-analysis of the nine best performing or frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a double marker combination of PAPP-A and free ßhCG significantly outperformed the individual markers (with or without maternal age) detecting about seven out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). Limited evidence suggested that marker combinations involving PAPP-A may be more sensitive than those without PAPP-A.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving two markers in combination with maternal age, specifically PAPP-A, free βhCG and maternal age are significantly better than those involving single markers with and without age. They detect seven out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. The addition of further markers (triple tests) has not been shown to be statistically superior; the studies included are small with limited power to detect a difference.The screening blood tests themselves have no adverse effects for the woman, over and above the risks of a routine blood test. However some women who have a 'high risk' screening test result, and are given amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) have a risk of miscarrying a baby unaffected by Down's. Parents will need to weigh up this risk when deciding whether or not to have an amniocentesis or CVS following a 'high risk' screening test result.

Luteinizing hormone and human chorionic gonadotropin: origins of difference

Luteinizing hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) are widely recognized for their roles in ovulation and the support of early pregnancy. Aside from the timing of expression, however, the differences between LH and hCG have largely been overlooked in the clinical realm because of their similar molecular structures and shared receptor. With technologic advancements, including the development of highly purified and recombinant gonadotropins, researchers now appreciate that these hormones are not as interchangeable as once believed. Although they bind to a common receptor, emerging evidence suggests that LH and hCG have disparate effects on downstream signaling cascades. Increased understanding of the inherent differences between LH and hCG will foster more effective diagnostic and prognostic assays for use in a variety of clinical contexts and support the individualization of treatment strategies for conditions such as infertility.

Luteinizing hormone and human chorionic gonadotropin: distinguishing unique physiologic roles

Luteinizing hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) are integral components of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which controls sexual maturation and functionality. In the absence of signaling through their shared receptor, fetal sexual differentiation and post-natal development cannot proceed normally. Although they share a high degree of homology, the physiologic roles of these hormones are unique, governed by differences in expression pattern, biopotency and regulation. Whereas LH is a key regulator of gonadal steroidogenesis and ovulation, hCG is predominantly active in pregnancy and fetal development. Emerging evidence has revealed endogenous functions not previously ascribed to hCG, including participation in ovulation and fertilization, implantation, placentation and other activities in support of successful pregnancy. Spontaneous and induced mutations in LH, hCG and their mutual receptor have contributed substantially to our understanding of reproductive development and function. The lack of naturally occurring, functionally significant mutations in the β-subunit of hCG reinforce its putative role in establishment of pregnancy. Rescue of reproductive abnormalities resulting from aberrant gonadotropin signaling is possible in certain clinical contexts, depending on the nature of the underlying defect. By understanding the physiologic roles of LH and hCG in normal and pathologic states, we may better harness their diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic potential.

The sensitivity and specificity of hyperglycosylated hCG (hhCG) levels to reliably diagnose clinical IVF pregnancies at 6 days following embryo transfer

Objective

To determine the sensitivity and specificity of hyperglycosylated hCG (hhCG) measurements for the diagnosis of clinical pregnancies in the IVF setting and how soon post embryo transfer (ET) a pregnancy can be detected using an ultrasensitive (hhCG) assay. To determine if a single, early hhCG measurement can discriminate between biochemical and clinical pregnancies.

Design

A 4 center prospective blinded clinical trial was performed with patients undergoing IVF-ET. Patients had blood drawn and submitted for hhCG analysis on the day of ET and at days 4, 6, 8, and 12 thereafter. First morning urines were collected and submitted for hhCG analysis on days 0, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12.

Setting

Fertility Centers

Outcome Measures

Clinical pregnancies were defined as an ultrasound study demonstrating a gestational sac and/or heart beat at appropriate gestational ages.

Results

Fifty-six of 58 enrolled patients completed the study. There were 25 clinical and 6 biochemical pregnancies. For blastocyst transfers, a single serum or urine hhCG measurement identified pregnancies (both biochemical and clinical) at 6 days post ET with 100% sensitivity and specificity. There were 6 biochemical pregnancies, all following blastocyst transfers. All of these pregnancies were identified by lower values.

New discoveries on the biology and detection of human chorionic gonadotropin

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a glycoprotein hormone comprising 2 subunits, alpha and beta joined non covalently. While similar in structure to luteinizing hormone (LH), hCG exists in multiple hormonal and non-endocrine agents, rather than as a single molecule like LH and the other glycoprotein hormones. These are regular hCG, hyperglycosylated hCG and the free beta-subunit of hyperglycosylated hCG. For 88 years regular hCG has been known as a promoter of corpus luteal progesterone production, even though this function only explains 3 weeks of a full gestations production of regular hCG. Research in recent years has explained the full gestational production by demonstration of critical functions in trophoblast differentiation and in fetal nutrition through myometrial spiral artery angiogenesis. While regular hCG is made by fused villous syncytiotrophoblast cells, extravillous invasive cytotrophoblast cells make the variant hyperglycosylated hCG. This variant is an autocrine factor, acting on extravillous invasive cytotrophoblast cells to initiate and control invasion as occurs at implantation of pregnancy and the establishment of hemochorial placentation, and malignancy as occurs in invasive hydatidiform mole and choriocarcinoma. Hyperglycosylated hCG inhibits apoptosis in extravillous invasive cytotrophoblast cells promoting cell invasion, growth and malignancy. Other non-trophoblastic malignancies retro-differentiate and produce a hyperglycosylated free beta-subunit of hCG (hCG free beta). This has been shown to be an autocrine factor antagonizing apoptosis furthering cancer cell growth and malignancy. New applications have been demonstrated for total hCG measurements and detection of the 3 hCG variants in pregnancy detection, monitoring pregnancy outcome, determining risk for Down syndrome fetus, predicting preeclampsia, detecting pituitary hCG, detecting and managing gestational trophoblastic diseases, diagnosing quiescent gestational trophoblastic disease, diagnosing placental site trophoblastic tumor, managing testicular germ cell malignancies, and monitoring other human malignancies. There are very few molecules with such wide and varying functions as regular hCG and its variants, and very few tests with such a wide spectrum of clinical applications as total hCG.