Fetal nasal bone length and Down syndrome during the second trimester in a Chinese population

Residual risk of clinically significant copy number variations in fetuses with nasal bone absence or hypoplasia after excluding non-invasive prenatal screening-detectable findings

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prenatal screening or diagnostic testing should be offered to fetuses with nasal bone (NB) absence or hypoplasia, and there are no studies comparing the yield of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) to non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the residual risk of clinically significant copy number variations (CNVs) in fetuses with NB absence or hypoplasia after excluding theoretically NIPS-detectable abnormalities, and to assess their clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective study encompassed 400 fetuses with NB absence or hypoplasia undergoing CMA testing between 2015 and 2022. Clinically significant CMA findings were categorized into three subgroups, including three-NIPS-detectable (trisomies 21, 18 and 13), five-NIPS-detectable (trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies) and genome-wide NIPS-detectable (variants over 7 Mb). We calculated the theoretical residual risk and compared it with the results of a control cohort of low-risk pregnancies. We further evaluated their clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The overall diagnostic yield in our cohort was 7.8% (31/400). The detection rate of clinically significant CMA findings in fetuses with non-isolated NB absence or hypoplasia was significantly higher than that in fetuses with isolated NB absence or hypoplasia (20.0% vs. 6.6%, P =.005). The theoretical residual risks in all NIPS models were significantly higher when compared with the control cohort. The normal infant rate in fetuses with normal CMA results was 97.9% (323/330), and a significant higher incidence was observed in fetuses with isolated NB absence or hypoplasia compared with non-isolated NB absence or hypoplasia (98.4% vs. 91.7%, P =.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The residual risk of clinically significant CNVs in fetuses with NB absence or hypoplasia following the exclusion of theoretically NIPS-detectable findings was higher than that in low-risk pregnancies. This risk should be considered in genetic counseling to make a more comprehensive and precise choice regarding prenatal genetic testing.

Assessing the value of second-trimester nasal bone hypoplasia in predicting chromosomal abnormalities: a retrospective chromosomal microarray analysis of 351 fetuses

PURPOSE

To evaluate the value of fetal nasal bone hypoplasia and other prenatal risk factors in predicting chromosomal abnormalities.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we collected data on singleton pregnancies diagnosed with fetal nasal bone hypoplasia during second-trimester ultrasound. Fetal karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) were performed, and pregnancy outcomes were assessed. The association between fetal nasal bone hypoplasia and chromosomal abnormalities was evaluated according to whether other prenatal risk factors were observed.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 351 pregnancies, of which 62 (17.7%) fetuses had chromosomal abnormalities, including 36 cases of trisomy-21, six cases of trisomy-18, one case each of trisomy-13, and 47, XYY syndrome, and 18 cases of copy number variations (CNVs). Among the 243 cases of isolated nasal bone hypoplasia, 28 (11.5%) cases of chromosomal aberrations were identified. The incidence was significantly higher if other soft markers or structural abnormalities were simultaneously detected. Pregnancy was terminated in 43 aneuploid fetuses and nine fetuses detected with CNVs. The parents of the fetuses diagnosed with 47, XYY syndrome and the other nine CNVs chose to continue the pregnancy, and no abnormalities were detected in the newborns. Furthermore, we found that other prenatal risk factors should be considered in evaluating the likelihood of chromosomal abnormalities in fetuses with nasal bone hypoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal bone hypoplasia is a highly specific soft marker that is associated with multiple chromosomal abnormalities. The risk of chromosomal abnormalities increases when combined with structural abnormalities or increased nuchal translucency (NT). Chromosomal microarray analysis is a powerful prenatal test for chromosomal abnormalities, which may be warranted in fetuses with nasal bone hypoplasia.

Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in foetuses with isolated absent or hypoplastic nasal bone

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficiency of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in the prenatal diagnosis of foetuses with isolated absent or hypoplastic nasal bone (NB) in the first and second trimester.

METHODS

From January 2015 to April 2021, foetuses with isolated absent or hypoplastic NB who received invasive prenatal diagnosis were enrolled. The results of CMA were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 221 foetuses, including 166 cases with isolated absent NB and 55 cases with isolated hypoplastic NB. Twenty-four foetuses (10.9%, 24/221) had an ultrasonic diagnosis in the first trimester and 197 (89.1%, 197/221) had a ultrasonic diagnosis in the second trimester. The overall diagnostic yield of CMA was 9.0% (20/221). Aneuploidies were detected in 13 (5.9%, 13/221) foetuses, including 10 Down syndrome, 2 Klinefelter's syndrome and 1 trisomy 18. Pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) were detected in seven foetuses (3.2%, 7/221). In addition, variants of unknown significance (VOUS) were detected in four foetuses. The foetuses with isolated absent NB had a higher detection rate of chromosome abnormality than the isolated hypoplastic NB, but the difference was not significant in the statistical analysis (10.2% vs. 5.5%, χ² =0.642, p = .423). No significant difference was observed in the detection rate between the first trimester and the second trimester (16.6% vs. 8.1%, χ² = 1.002, p = .317, Chi-square test).

CONCLUSION

CMA can increase the diagnostic yield of chromosome abnormality, especially pathogenic CNVs for foetuses with isolated absent or hypoplastic NB. CMA should be recommended when isolated absent or hypoplastic NB is suspected antenatally.7.

Is Prenatal Diagnosis Necessary for Fetal Isolated Nasal Bone Absence or Hypoplasia?

Purpose

This study aimed to explore the value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and whole exome sequencing (WES) in the prenatal diagnosis of fetal isolated nasal bone absence (INBA) or isolated nasal bone hypoplasia (INBH). We hope to provide additional relevant information for clinical counseling.

Patients and Methods

From November 1, 2018, to March 1, 2020, 55 pregnant women with isolated nasal bone dysplasia were admitted to the Changzhou Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital. Based on the degree of abnormality, the patients were divided into two groups: INBA and INBH. CMA was performed on all patients. The clinical data and prenatal genetic diagnoses of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. According to the requirements of WES for samples, 12 cases with negative CMA results were selected for the WES test.

Results

A total of 55 cases with INBA or INBH met the inclusion criteria. In 35INBA fetuses, there was one case of trisomy 21 and one case of 10q11.22 deletion (5.7Mb), and the abnormality rate was 5.71% (2/35). Compared with INBA fetuses, the abnormality rate was increased in the fetuses with INBH [15.00% (3/20)] (15.00% vs 5.71%); there was one case of 1q21.1 duplication (1.3Mb), one case of Xp22.31 duplication (1.67Mb), and one case of 4p deletion (7.6Mb). In a later retrospective study, two pathogenic variants were identified in two cases after the WES test; the abnormality rate was 16.67% (2/12), which involved RUNX2 and CDH4 genes, respectively.

Conclusion

A preliminary study confirmed that molecular prenatal diagnosis should be performed in fetuses with INBA or INBH. CMA followed by WES is an effective method.

Absent fetal nasal bone in the second trimester and risk of abnormal karyotype in a prescreened population of Chinese women

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of absent fetal nasal bone in the prediction of fetal chromosomal abnormalities, according to whether it was associated with other soft markers or structural abnormalities in a prescreened population of Chinese pregnant women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, women whose fetuses had absent nasal bone detected during the second trimester ultrasound scan were followed. Fetal karyotyping was performed and pregnancy outcomes were recorded. The association between absent fetal nasal bone with abnormal karyotype was evaluated according to whether soft markers or structural abnormalities were also observed.

RESULTS

Fetal nasal bone was assessed in 56 707 singleton pregnancies. After exclusion of unqualified cases, 71 (71/56 707, 0.13%) fetuses were included in the final analyses, of which 16 (16/71, 22.54%) were detected to have chromosomal abnormalities, including 12 cases of trisomy-21, three of trisomy-18, and one of micro-deletion (in 7q). Among the 42 cases with isolated absence of nasal bone, two had trisomy-21 and one had a micro-deletion. Absence of nasal bone in association with other structural abnormalities had a higher rate of abnormal karyotypes compared with isolated absence of nasal bone [83.33% (10/12) vs. 7.14% (3/42), Fisher's exact test χ²  = 25.620, p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Absent fetal nasal bone is a highly specific ultrasonographic soft marker that should be included in the routine second trimester ultrasound scan.

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 and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability. 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 (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal) and false negative screening tests (i.e. a fetus with Down's syndrome will be missed). 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 and second trimester serum markers with and without first trimester ultrasound markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, as combinations of markers.

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), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We did forward citation searching in ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We also searched reference lists of retrieved articles SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating tests of combining first and second trimester maternal serum markers in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, with or without first trimester ultrasound markers, 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

Twenty-two studies (reported in 25 publications) involving 228,615 pregnancies (including 1067 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high risk pregnancies. Ten studies made direct comparisons between tests. Thirty-two different test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of eight different tests and maternal age; first trimester nuchal translucency (NT) and the serum markers AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG, Inhibin A, PAPP-A and ADAM 12. We looked at tests combining first and second trimester markers with or without ultrasound as complete tests, and we also examined stepwise and contingent strategies.Meta-analysis of the six most frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a combination of first trimester NT and PAPP-A, and second trimester total hCG, uE3, AFP and Inhibin A significantly outperformed other test combinations that involved only one serum marker or NT in the first trimester, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. However, the evidence was limited in terms of the number of studies evaluating this strategy, and we therefore cannot recommend one single screening strategy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving first trimester ultrasound with first and second trimester serum markers in combination with maternal age are significantly better than those without ultrasound, or those evaluating first trimester ultrasound in combination with second trimester serum markers, without first trimester serum markers. We cannot make recommendations about a specific strategy on the basis of the small number of studies available.

Fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester: comparison between population groups from different ethnic origins

OBJECTIVE

To compare normal ranges of ultrasonographically measured fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester between different ethnic groups.

METHOD

A prospective, non-interventional study in order to establish normal ranges of fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester in a Greek population was conducted in 1220 singleton fetuses between 18 completed weeks and 23 weeks and 6 days of gestation. A literature search followed in order to identify similar studies in different population groups. Fetal nasal bone length mean values and percentiles from different population groups were compared.

RESULTS

Analysis of measurements in the Greek population showed a linear association, i.e., increasing nasal bone length with increasing gestational age from 5.73 mm at 18 weeks to 7.63 mm at 23 weeks. Eleven studies establishing normal ranges of fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester were identified. Comparison of fetal nasal bone length mean values between the 12 population groups showed statistically significant differences (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Normal ranges of fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester vary significantly between different ethnic groups. Hence, distinct ethnic nomograms of fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester should be used in a given population rather than an international model.

Screening performance of different methods defining fetal nasal bone hypoplasia as a single and combined marker for the detection of trisomy 21 in the second trimester

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate different methods of defining fetal nasal bone hypoplasia in the second trimester for the detection of trisomy 21.

METHODS

Prospective study in Greek women undergoing anomaly scan between 18 + 0 and 23 + 6 weeks. The following methods of defining nasal bone hypoplasia were evaluated, either as a single marker or in combination with others: (1) BPD to nasal bone length (NBL) ratio; (2) multiples of the median (MoM) of NBL, according to normal curves from a Greek population; (3-4) NBL < 2.5 percentile according to normal curves (3) commonly used internationally curves and (4) curves from a Greek population.

RESULTS

In total, 1301 singleton fetuses were evaluated - 10 with trisomy 21. The best detection rate of trisomy 21 was achieved when the applied method was nasal bone percentiles adjusted to maternal ethnicity, in combination with other markers (<2.5 percentile according to normal curves from a Greek population; p < 0.001; sensitivity 50%; specificity 94.8%; false-positive rate 5.2%; positive likelihood ratio 9.6).

CONCLUSION

Screening performance of fetal nasal bone hypoplasia in detecting trisomy 21 varies according to the method applied. The best screening performance is achieved by using percentiles adjusted to maternal ethnicity in combination with other markers of aneuploidy.

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.

[News methods for second trimester screening of Down syndrome: statistical analysis of the use of nasal bone length and prenasal thickness]

INTRODUCTION

Sonographic measurements of nasal bone length and prenasal soft tissue thickness are ultrasonographic methods for prenatal screening of Down syndrome.

AIM

The aim of the authors was to create a local normogram for nasal bone length and prenasal soft tissue thickness measurements and to test the performance of different statistical methods.

METHOD

Euploid (N = 1500) and trisomy 21 foetuses (N = 10) studied between April 2008 and December 2013 were included. Nasal bone length and prenasal thickness measurements were performed at the Medisono Fetal and Maternal Health Research Centre, Szeged, and cytogenetic tests were performed at the Department of Medical Genetics, University of Szeged, Hungary. Normograms were created with different number of patients (N = 100, 300, 500, 750. 1000 and 1500) and using 3 different statistical methods (linear regression, square-based regression, and box-plot analysis).

RESULTS

The results indicated that at least 1000 measurements are strongly recommended for the normograms. The increase of patient number improved the efficacy of the normograms in each of the 3 statistical methods used for analysis. In general practice box-plots provides a better performance over the other screening methods. However, advanced level screening requires local linear normograms for the best screening results.

CONCLUSION

The use of box-plots is recommended for the use in the daily practice but regression-based normograms are necessary for advanced prenatal screening.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of performance of second-trimester nasal bone assessment in detection of fetuses with Down syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically the literature on diagnostic tests and performance of second-trimester sonographic assessment of nasal bone (NB) in identifying fetuses affected by Down syndrome.

METHODS

A search of studies involving screening tests for NB evaluation and measurements was carried out in the main international bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Those considered to be relevant were then subjected to critical reading, following Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria, by at least three independent observers. All data were extracted and tabulated by two independent investigators. A statistical synthesis of sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios was performed using specific software (Meta-DiSc).

RESULTS

From an initial list of 852 articles referring to ultrasound markers for Down syndrome, 207 relevant papers were selected. Following exclusions, 21 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pooled estimates of positive and negative likelihood ratios were 40.08 (95% CI, 18.10-88.76) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), respectively, for absent NB and 15.15 (95% CI, 8.15-28.16) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.64), respectively, for hypoplastic NB. No relevant differences were found between the various means of defining nasal hypoplasia (multiples of the median (MoM) or percentiles). The biparietal diameter/nasal bone length (BPD/NBL) ratio showed somewhat higher sensitivity but lower specificity with a threshold effect.

CONCLUSIONS

NB absence or hypoplasia show high specificity and low but acceptable sensitivity in identifying fetuses with Down syndrome. Screening performance is better with NB measurements as a function of MoM or percentiles rather than as the BPD/NBL ratio. Classification of women into various risk groups for Down syndrome does not affect diagnostic performance.

Nasal bone length: the long and short of it. Evaluation of the reference values for the fetal nasal bone length at 16 to 25 weeks of gestational age in an Indian population

OBJECTIVE

To establish a reference interval range for the fetal nasal bone length (NBL) in an Indian population.

METHODS

A retrospective study of antenatal ultrasound records of fetuses at 16 to 25 weeks in singleton pregnancies. NBL, biparietal diameter (BPD) and femur length were noted in 6436 observations of singleton, euploid, nonmalformed pregnancies.

RESULTS

The 50th centile for NBLs increased from 3.4 to 6.9 mm from 16th to 25th week of gestational age. The relation between nasal bone and gestational age, BPD and femur length were found and noted. The NBLs were found to be shorter when compared with other ethnicities.

CONCLUSIONS

A reference range for fetal NBLs at 16 to 25 weeks in an Indian population and its relation with fetal biometry was established.

Three-dimensional ultrasonography measurement of fetal nasal bone length during the midtrimester in Taiwanese women

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the normal range of the fetal nasal bone length (NBL) in Taiwanese women using three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound, and compare the NBL of normal fetuses with Down syndrome to determine its significance in screening for trisomy 21.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 102 consecutive fetuses and another 7 fetuses with trisomy 21, determined by karyotyping at 15-22 weeks' gestation, were evaluated with 3D ultrasound before amniocentesis at Changhua Christian Hospital between November 2003 and April 2004.

RESULTS

The normal range for NBL in the second trimester in the Taiwanese population was investigated, and a linear relationship with gestational age was noted. The NBL increased with advancing gestational age (NBL in cm=0.0264×gestational age in weeks -0.042 (R(2)=0.2416). The median of the biparietal diameter/nasal bone length ratio had a stable value which tended to change minimally between 15 and 22 weeks of gestation. Chromosomally normal fetuses had statistically longer nasal bones than fetuses with Down syndrome (p=0.014).

CONCLUSION

We present a reference range for 3D ultrasound measurement of the fetal NBL. A short nasal bone at 15 to 22 weeks is associated with a high risk of trisomy 21.

Normal ranges for fetal nasal bone length determined by ultrasound at 18-20 weeks of gestation in a multiethnic Australian population

OBJECTIVE

Absence or hypoplasia of the nasal bone is commonly reported in Down syndrome fetuses. We define normal ranges and the 2.5th centile for fetal nasal bone length (NBL) in a multiethnic Australian population at 18-20 weeks of gestation.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of women attending for a routine anomaly scan. Ethnicity of the patient and their partner was recorded, and the nasal bone was measured three times. Two methods of nasal bone assessment were used to define normal ranges: a single (first) measurement and the mean value of three measurements. Mixed-effects regression models were employed to account for interoperator differences treating sonographers as random effects. Nonparametric methods were used to define the 2.5th centile for gestational age.

RESULTS

A total of 1199 women were included with a mean gestational age 19.1 (SD 0.4; range 18-20) weeks. There is significant linear relationship between NBL and gestational age (P<0.001). The mean of three nasal bone measurements had a smaller standard deviation than single nasal bone measurements. Nonparametric assessment was used to define the 2.5th centile, which is 4.4 mm at 18 weeks and 5.0 mm at 20 weeks of gestation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a reference range for fetal NBL at 18-20 weeks of gestation in an unselected multiethnic Australian population. Whilst NBL increases linearly from 18 to 20 weeks, the data are not normally distributed and nonparametric techniques are required to define the 2.5th centile. The mixed-effects model also accounts for variation in sonographer measurements.

A prospective cross-sectional study to define racial variation in fetal nasal bone length through ultrasound assessment at 18-20 weeks' gestation

OBJECTIVE

An absent or short nasal bone is highly predictive of Down syndrome in Caucasian populations, but Asians may have shorter nasal bones - increasing the false positive rate of screening. We examine differences in nasal bone length (NBL) in Caucasian and Asian populations.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study involved pregnant women attending for their routine anomaly scan at 18-20 weeks' gestation. Ethnicity of the patient and their partner was recorded, and the nasal bone was measured three times. Mean NBL was calculated and used to investigate the effect of ethnicity first with a simple linear regression model and second with a mixed-effects regression model that accounted for variability of measurement between sonographers.

RESULTS

A total of 1087 families were involved in the study, including 592 (54%) Caucasians, 214 (20%) East Asians, 110 (10%) South Asians and 171 (16%) West Asians. Twenty-three sonographers performed the scans with an average of 19 scans each. There is no significant difference in NBL between Caucasian and Asian populations. The mixed-effects model shows that accounting for sonographer variation is important, with 6.7% of the total variance in measurement being related to this random effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in NBL between Caucasian and Asian populations. It is reasonable to use criteria established in a Caucasian population to define the characteristics of an absent/short nasal bone in Asian fetuses. This finding also removes difficulties in counselling mixed race couples.

A comparison of binary models dealing with an extraneous effect relating to the main risk factor, but not relating to the outcome variable

In a binary model relating a response variable Y to a risk factor X, account may need to take of an extraneous effect Z that is related to X, but not Y. This is known as the association pattern Y-X-Z. The extraneous variable Z is commonly included in models as a covariate. This paper concerns binary models, and investigates the use of deviation from the group mean (D-GM) and deviation from the fitted fractional polynomial value (D-FP) for removing the extraneous effect of Z.In a simulation study, D-FP performed excellently, while the performance of D-GM was slightly worse than the traditional method of treating Z as a covariate. In addition, estimators with excessive mean square errors or standard errors cannot occur when D-GM or D-FP is employed, even in small or sparse data sets.The Y-X-Z association pattern studied here often occurs in fetal studies, where the fetal measurement (X) varies with the gestation age (Z), but gestation age does not relate to the outcome variable (Y; e.g. Down's syndrome). D-GM and D-FP perform well with illustrative data from fetal studies, although there is a weak association between X and Z with a lower proportion of case subjects (e.g. 11:1, control to case).It is not necessary to add a new covariate when a model deals with the extraneous effect. The D-FP or D-GM methods perform well with the real data studied here, and moreover, D-FP demonstrated excellent performance in simulations.