Inhibin A is a maternal serum marker for Down's syndrome early in the first trimester

Challenges of prenatal diagnosis in obese pregnant women

Obesity rates are increasing world-wide with most of the increase in women of the reproductive age group. While recognised as an important contributor to non-communicable diseases, pregnant women with obesity are particularly at risk of not only maternal and pregnant complications but also have an increased risk of congenital malformations. Furthermore, pregnant obese women are more likely to be older and therefore at a greater risk of aneuploidy. Prenatal diagnosis in these women especially those who are morbidly obese is challenging due not only to their weight but the implications of the increase adiposity on biochemical markers of aneuploidy. In this review we discuss the current challenges in providing prenatal diagnosis for these women including those related to the ergonomics of ultrasound and those inherent in them because of their obesity. Appropriate counselling for these women should include the lower sensitivity of the tests, the difficulties in performing some of the procedures (imaging and invasive testing) as well as the increased risk of structural abnormalities related to their obesity.

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.

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.

ADAM 12 may be used to reduce the false positive rate of first trimester combined screening for Down syndrome

BACKGROUND

ADAM12 has been shown to be an efficient maternal serum marker for Down syndrome (DS) in the first trimester; but recent studies, using a second generation assay, have not confirmed these findings. We examined the efficiency of a second generation assay for ADAM12.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ADAM12 concentrations were determined in 28 first trimester DS and 503 control pregnancies using a novel Research Delfia ADAM12 kit. Log10MoM distributions of ADAM12 and correlations with other markers were established. Population performance of screening was estimated by Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

ADAM12 was significantly reduced in the first trimester in DS pregnancies with a log10MoM of -0.1621 (equivalent to 0.68 MoM) (p < 0.001). The reduction decreased with advancing gestational age. ADAM12 used with PAPP-A + hCG beta + NT (CUB screening) increased the detection rate (DR) from 86% to 89% for a false positive rate (FPR) of 5%. When used for a fixed DR of 90%, the addition of ADAM12 resulted in a 25% reduction of the FPR.

CONCLUSION

ADAM12 is a moderately effective DS marker. It is not a cost-effective addition to CUB screening, but may be used to reduce the FPR in selected high-risk cases.

Comparison of first-trimester contingent screening strategies for Down syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative performance of a multi-stage first-trimester screening protocol for fetal Down syndrome.

METHODS

Data from 10,767 women who underwent combined ultrasound and biochemistry (BC) screening in the first trimester were reanalyzed using a contingent model approach. Amongst the 10,854 fetuses with known outcome, 32 had Down syndrome, 232 had other abnormalities and 10,590 were unaffected. Nuchal translucency (NT), BC and combined (NT-BC) gestational age-specific risks were calculated for each individual using The Fetal Medicine Foundation risk calculation algorithms (Mixture Model and Biochemistry). Individual patients were categorized as at low, high or intermediate risk according to one of the following three strategies. In 'Strategy-NT-BC' initial screening was performed using both NT and BC. In 'Strategy-BC' initial screening was undertaken using maternal serum markers followed by NT assessment in those with an intermediate risk (1 : 51 < risk <or= 1:1000) while in 'Strategy-NT' initial screening was undertaken using NT followed by serum marker assessment in those with an intermediate risk (1 : 51 < risk <or= 1:1000). The nasal bone was assessed in those with an intermediate risk as the final stage in each of the three strategies. Those with an adjusted risk of 1 in 100 or higher after nasal bone assessment were reclassified as high risk. Detection and false-positive rates were compared between differing strategies in our local population, and this analysis was also performed with the maternal age for our population standardized to the distribution found in England and Wales.

RESULTS

In our local population the detection rate for a 5% false-positive rate using a combined screening policy (NT-BC) was 88% (95% CI, 75.3-98.9%), and 2.3% had an absent nasal bone. The respective detection rate and false-positive rate of the three multi-stage screening strategies were: Strategy-NT-BC: 87.5 and 2.5%; Strategy-BC: 87.5 and 5%; Strategy-NT: 84.4 and 2.9%. In the contingent Strategy-BC only 29% of those initially screened using serum markers required an NT scan. If the model were applied to a hypothetical obstetric population standardized to the maternal age distribution in England and Wales, the detection and false-positive rates of the same three screening strategies would be: Strategy-NT-BC: 86.2 and 1.9%; Strategy-BC: 82.8 and 4%; Strategy-NT: 75.8 and 2.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

First-trimester contingent screening provides detection and false-positive rates comparable to those achieved using combined screening, but could be used to significantly reduce the number of scans performed.

Human placental lactogen is a first-trimester maternal serum marker of Down syndrome

BACKGROUND

Human placental lactogen (hPL) is synthesised by the placenta and found in maternal serum. We analysed the potential of hPL as a first-trimester maternal serum-screening marker for fetal Down syndrome (DS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

hPL was quantified by ELISA in 47 DS pregnancies and 136 controls in gestational weeks 8-13. Distributions of log multiples of the median (MoMs) were established. The quantity of hPL in DS screening was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods.

RESULTS

The mean log10 MoM hPL was - 0.1995 (SD: 0.1993) in affected and 0.0026 (SD: 0.2129) in control pregnancies. This corresponds to a MoM of 0.63 in DS pregnancies. hPL correlated significantly with log10 MoM values of hCGbeta (r = 0.320) and PAPP-A (r = 0.590) in controls, but not with hCGbeta (r = 0.228) or PAPP-A (r = 0.090) in DS pregnancies. The inclusion of hPL in the double test (PAPP-A + hCGbeta) increased the detection rate from 67 to 75% for a false-positive rate of 5%.

CONCLUSION

hPL is a DS screening marker that is applicable at weeks 9-13 and could be included in multiple marker first-trimester screening for DS.

Serum PAPP-A levels at 10–14 weeks of gestation are altered in women after assisted conception

OBJECTIVES

Increased screen-positive rate was observed in the first-trimester screening for trisomy 21 (T21) among women after assisted conception. The aim of this study was to identify the trends of changes in serum marker levels after different modes of assisted conception.

METHODS

Retrospectively, we analyzed the levels of free beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (f beta HCG), pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and inhibin A in maternal serum, and fetal nuchal translucency (NT) thickness at 10-14 gestational weeks in 1098 women with singleton pregnancies: 130 after IVF-ET, 54 after ICSI and 914 after spontaneous conception.

RESULTS

In women after IVF-ET and ICSI, PAPP-A was decreased (0.94 MoM and 0.82 MoM, respectively) and inhibin A increased (1.11 MoM and 1.48 MoM, respectively) in comparison to the women after spontaneous conception. With increasing number of oocytes retrieved PAPP-A decreased and inhibin A increased. In women pregnant after assisted conception without ovarian stimulation (transfer of frozen-thawed embryo or in spontaneous cycle) the marker levels were not significantly different from those in women after spontaneous conception.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of multiple corpora lutea may be responsible for the changes in marker levels. In spite of the differences in marker levels, the screen-positive rate for T21 is not significantly increased in women after assisted conception.