Second trimester serum tests for Down's Syndrome screening

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations

BACKGROUND

Prenatal ultrasound is widely used to screen for structural anomalies before birth. While this is traditionally done in the second trimester, there is an increasing use of first-trimester ultrasound for early detection of lethal and certain severe structural anomalies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in detecting fetal structural anomalies before 14 and 24 weeks' gestation in low-risk and unselected pregnant women and to compare the current two main prenatal screening approaches: a single second-trimester scan (single-stage screening) and a first- and second-trimester scan combined (two-stage screening) in terms of anomaly detection before 24 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) from 1 January 1997 to 22 July 2022. We limited our search to studies published after 1997 and excluded animal studies, reviews and case reports. No further restrictions were applied. We also screened reference lists and citing articles of each of the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they included low-risk or unselected pregnant women undergoing a first- and/or second-trimester fetal anomaly scan, conducted at 11 to 14 or 18 to 24 weeks' gestation, respectively. The reference standard was detection of anomalies at birth or postmortem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently undertook study selection, quality assessment (QUADAS-2), data extraction and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach). We used univariate random-effects logistic regression models for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies covering 7,057,859 fetuses (including 25,202 with structural anomalies) were included. No study was deemed low risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Main methodological concerns included risk of bias in the reference standard domain and risk of partial verification. Applicability concerns were common in studies evaluating first-trimester scans and two-stage screening in terms of patient selection due to frequent recruitment from single tertiary centres without exclusion of referrals. We reported ultrasound accuracy for fetal structural anomalies overall, by severity, affected organ system and for 46 specific anomalies. Detection rates varied widely across categories, with the highest estimates of sensitivity for thoracic and abdominal wall anomalies and the lowest for gastrointestinal anomalies across all tests. The summary sensitivity of a first-trimester scan was 37.5% for detection of structural anomalies overall (95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1 to 44.3; low-certainty evidence) and 91.3% for lethal anomalies (95% CI 83.9 to 95.5; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.9 to 100; low-certainty evidence). Two-stage screening had a combined sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 74.7 to 90.1; low-certainty evidence), while single-stage screening had a sensitivity of 50.5% (95% CI 38.5 to 62.4; very low-certainty evidence). The specificity of two-stage screening was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 100; low-certainty evidence) and for single-stage screening, it was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2 to 100; moderate-certainty evidence). Indirect comparisons suggested superiority of two-stage screening across all analyses regarding sensitivity, with no significant difference in specificity. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to the absence of direct comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A first-trimester scan has the potential to detect lethal and certain severe anomalies with high accuracy before 14 weeks' gestation, despite its limited overall sensitivity. Conversely, two-stage screening shows high accuracy in detecting most fetal structural anomalies before 24 weeks' gestation with high sensitivity and specificity. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 fetuses, the first-trimester scan is expected to correctly identify 113 out of 124 fetuses with lethal anomalies (91.3%) and 665 out of 1776 fetuses with any anomaly (37.5%). However, 79 false-positive diagnoses are anticipated among 98,224 fetuses (0.08%). Two-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 1448 out of 1776 cases of structural anomalies overall (83.8%), with 118 false positives (0.1%). In contrast, single-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 896 out of 1776 cases before 24 weeks' gestation (50.5%), with 205 false-positive diagnoses (0.2%). This represents a difference of 592 fewer correct identifications and 88 more false positives compared to two-stage screening. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding the additional benefits of two-stage versus single-stage screening, as there are no studies directly comparing them. Moreover, the evidence supporting the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound and two-stage screening approaches primarily originates from studies conducted in single tertiary care facilities, which restricts the generalisability of the results of this meta-analysis to the broader population.

Anxiety and social support needs of Chinese women receiving a high-risk screening result for Down syndrome

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of anxiety symptoms and the associations between social support and anxiety symptoms among Chinese pregnant women receiving a high-risk screening result for Down syndrome.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Guangzhou, China, from September 2020 to July 2021 among 260 Chinese pregnant women receiving a high-risk screening result for Down syndrome. Measures included the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Social Support Rating Scale.

RESULTS

The prevalence of anxiety symptoms (SAS ≥50) was 30.8%. Advanced age (≥35 years), education ≤ high school, pregnancy following in vitro fertilization, and low level of social support were predictors of anxiety symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that early routine screening for anxiety symptoms should be carried out among Chinese pregnant women receiving a high-risk screening result for Down syndrome. The importance of social support and the role it can play in decreasing anxiety should be discussed with patients.

Tiny Toes to Tau Tangles: Down's Syndrome and Its Association With Alzheimer's Disease

Down’s syndrome (DS) is a common genetic condition caused by the trisomy of chromosome 21, which leads to the development of many multisystemic complications, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD) being one of its most common complications. In this article, we have performed an intensive literature review that established a strong relationship between AD and DS. These two conditions are clubbed pathologically, clinically, and diagnostically to understand the association between AD and DS. This article focuses on understanding the impact of AD on a DS patient on both clinical and pathological levels and exploring some advanced treatment modalities. It has also emphasized the importance of early screening and diagnosis for AD in this group of patients to prevent AD development. Regular monitoring, early diagnosis, and a proper treatment plan can slow the AD occurrence in DS patients.

Novel Approaches to an Integrated Route for Trisomy 21 Evaluation

Trisomy 21 (T21) is one of the most commonly occurring genetic disorders, caused by the partial or complete triplication of chromosome 21. Despite the significant progress in the diagnostic tools applied for prenatal screening, commonly used methods are still imprecise and involve invasive diagnostic procedures that are related to a maternal risk of miscarriage. In this case, novel prenatal biomarkers are still being evaluated using highly specialized techniques, which could increase the diagnostic usefulness of biochemical prenatal screening for T21. From the other hand, the T21′s pathogenesis, caused by the improper division of genetic material, disrupting many metabolic pathways, could be further evaluated with the use of omics methods, which could result in bringing relevant insights for the evaluation of potential medical targets. Accordingly, a literature search was undertaken to collect novel information about prenatal screening for Down syndrome with the use of advanced technology, with a particular emphasis on the evaluation of novel screening biomarkers and the discovery of potential medical targets. These meta-analyses are focused on novel approaches designed with the use of omics techniques, representing the most rapidly developing and promising field in research today. Considering the limitations and progress of these methods, the use of omics techniques in evaluating T21 pathogenesis could bring beneficial results in prenatal screening, simultaneously uncovering novel potential medical targets.

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low‐risk and unselected populations

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows:

The main objectives of this review are to assess the diagnostic accuracy of first‐ and second‐trimester fetal anomaly screening in low‐risk pregnant women, and to compare overall performance of single‐ and two‐stage screening approaches with regards to the number of cases detected before birth, as well as the proportion of false positive diagnoses.

Application of intelligent algorithms in Down syndrome screening during second trimester pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Down syndrome (DS) is one of the most common chromosomal aneuploidy diseases. Prenatal screening and diagnostic tests can aid the early diagnosis, appropriate management of these fetuses, and give parents an informed choice about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. In recent years, investigations have been conducted to achieve a high detection rate (DR) and reduce the false positive rate (FPR). Hospitals have accumulated large numbers of screened cases. However, artificial intelligence methods are rarely used in the risk assessment of prenatal screening for DS.

AIM

To use a support vector machine algorithm, classification and regression tree algorithm, and AdaBoost algorithm in machine learning for modeling and analysis of prenatal DS screening.

METHODS

The dataset was from the Center for Prenatal Diagnosis at the First Hospital of Jilin University. We designed and developed intelligent algorithms based on the synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE)-Tomek and adaptive synthetic sampling over-sampling techniques to preprocess the dataset of prenatal screening information. The machine learning model was then established. Finally, the feasibility of artificial intelligence algorithms in DS screening evaluation is discussed.

RESULTS

The database contained 31 DS diagnosed cases, accounting for 0.03% of all patients. The dataset showed a large difference between the numbers of DS affected and non-affected cases. A combination of over-sampling and under-sampling techniques can greatly increase the performance of the algorithm at processing non-balanced datasets. As the number of iterations increases, the combination of the classification and regression tree algorithm and the SMOTE-Tomek over-sampling technique can obtain a high DR while keeping the FPR to a minimum.

CONCLUSION

The support vector machine algorithm and the classification and regression tree algorithm achieved good results on the DS screening dataset. When the T21 risk cutoff value was set to 270, machine learning methods had a higher DR and a lower FPR than statistical methods.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for the prenatal screening of sex chromosome aneuploidies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

Background

There is little evidence on the performance of non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the detection of fetal sex chromosomal imbalances. In this review, we aimed to appraise and synthesize the literature on the performance of NIPT for the prenatal detection of fetal sex chromosome aneuploidies.

Methods

We performed our literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CADTH. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. There were no restrictions on the study population. Meta‐analyses were performed with “R” software. Pooled sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CI were estimated using a random‐effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by a Q test.

Results

Based on 11 studies in high prior risk pregnancies, including 116 affected fetuses in aggregate, Massively Parallel Shotgun Sequencing (MPSS) had a sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI 84.1%, 97.8%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 98.7%, 99.9%) for the detection of 45,X. Based on four studies in high‐risk pregnancies, with 83 affected fetuses in aggregate, Targeted Massively Parallel Sequencing (TMPS) had a sensitivity of 83.2% (95% CI 49.6%, 96.2%) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI 98.3%, 100%) for the detection of 45,X. In mixed‐risk pregnancies, the sensitivity of TMPS for the detection of 45,X was 90.9% (2 studies; 95% CI 70%, 97.7%) and specificity 99.9% (2 studies; 95% CI 99.4%, 100%); MPSS data were not available in such pregnancies. Based on smaller numbers of studies, and small numbers of affected fetuses in either high‐risk or mixed‐risk pregnancies (using either MPSS or TMPS), the sensitivities and specificities were equal to or greater than 76.2% for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47, XYY. The test failures for SCAs were 0.2% (95% CI 0%, 13.6%) for MPSS and 5.6% (95% CI 3.7%, 8.4%) for TMPS.

Conclusion

High‐quality studies are still desirable in order to estimate the performance of NIPT for the detection of sex chromosome imbalances.

Optimizing Fetal Aneuploidy Screening in an Austere Military Clinical Environment: A Prenatal Cost Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Austere clinical settings, including remote military installations, face unique challenges in screening pregnant women for aneuploidy. The objective of this study was to compare the direct and indirect prenatal costs of traditional 2-part serum-based screening to cell-free DNA (cfDNA) for detection of trisomies 18 and 21 for a military treatment facility with limited in-house perinatal resources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay as a surrogate for an austere clinical environment. A prenatal cost of care analysis incorporating direct and indirect expenses was performed to compare the 2 aneuploidy screening strategies for a theoretical cohort of 100 patients for detection of trisomies 18 and 21. The baseline aneuploidy uptake rate was determined using a historical cohort. Test performance characteristics were obtained from the contracting laboratory. Aneuploidy rates and costs were calculated using previously published data.

RESULTS

Assuming a baseline screen uptake rate of 87%, initial screening using the traditional approach would directly cost $8,285.01 versus $44,140.32 with cfDNA. Considering indirect costs such as travel, consultative services, evaluation and follow-up testing of an abnormal screen result, and lost productivity, the cost difference narrows to $14,458.25 over a 5- to 6-year period. Cost equivalence is achieved when cfDNA is priced at $341.17 per test.

CONCLUSION

Cell-free DNA as an initial screening strategy offers enhanced detection rates for trisomies 18 and 21 but remains more costly than traditional screening when incorporating direct and indirect expenses. In a low volume setting with limited resources, the added cost may be justified given the implications of unrecognized aneuploidy.

Non invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common aneuploidies and beyond

Non invasive prenatal Testing (NIPT) is changing the practice of prenatal diagnosis worldwide. It provides high sensitivity and specificity in screening for common aneuploidies. As a result, it has reduced the number of invasive procedures, thereby reducing their associated risk of pregnancy miscarriage. NIPT is based on the detection and analysis of cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) that is obtained from a maternal peripheral blood sample. Advanced laboratory detection and purification technology has improved the performance of NIPT and allowed the introduction of new applications in recent years. The introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) into clinical practice has rendered NIPT to have high sensitivity in the screening of aneuploidy. It has also allowed detecting and investigating the fetal genome from maternal plasma. Fetal Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) provides non invasive prenatal diagnosis of inherited monogenic disorders and can also offer a diagnosis of an underlying cause of fetal anomalies that have a normal karyotype. The following will review the current and potential future applications of NIPT and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various NIPT techniques. The role of public healthcare system plays in the provision of the test, and the psychological impact of NIPT on the end-users will also be highlighted.

Methods and reporting of systematic reviews of comparative accuracy were deficient: a methodological survey and proposed guidance

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses which compare diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of multiple index tests, identify good practice, and develop guidance for better reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Methodological survey of 127 comparative or multiple tests reviews published in 74 different general medical and specialist journals. We summarized methods and reporting characteristics that are likely to differ between reviews of a single test and comparative reviews. We then developed guidance to enhance reporting of test comparisons in DTA reviews.

RESULTS

Of 127 reviews, 16 (13%) reviews restricted study selection and test comparisons to comparative accuracy studies while the remaining 111 (87%) reviews included any study type. Fifty-three reviews (42%) statistically compared test accuracy with only 18 (34%) of these using recommended methods. Reporting of several items-in particular the role of the index tests, test comparison strategy, and limitations of indirect comparisons (i.e., comparisons involving any study type)-was deficient in many reviews. Five reviews with exemplary methods and reporting were identified.

CONCLUSION

Reporting quality of reviews which evaluate and compare multiple tests is poor. The guidance developed, complemented with the exemplars, can assist review authors in producing better quality comparative reviews.

Integrating multiple of the median values of serological markers with the risk cut-off value in Down syndrome screening

To assess the predictive value of integrating multiple of the median (MOM) with the risk cut-off value for serological screening of Down syndrome. In this retrospective study, women with singleton pregnancies who underwent triple serological screening for Down syndrome were followed, and their screening results and pregnancy outcomes were recorded. The range of MoM value of each indicator was calculated, different protocols integrating various MoM values with the risk cut-off value were compared. A total of 120,269 women with singleton pregnancy were screened and included in the analysis, of those 52 fetuses were confirmed as trisomy-21 by amniocentesis chromosomal karyotyping. Using a risk cut-off value of 1:380, 8,809 samples tested positive and the screen positive rate was 7.32% (8,809/120,269). The normal reference ranges (5-95%) of the MoM value of AFP, β-hCG, and uE3 were 0.60-1.72, 0.43-2.21 and 0.60-1.58, respectively. The detection rate of each screening protocol integrating different MoM percentile values was between 75% and 79%, the positive rate was between 7% and 18%, and the false positive rate was between 7% and 18%. Protocol-6 which combined the screening risk cut-off value and β-hCG MoM ≥ 97.5% percentile is an optimal protocol with a relatively high detection rate (78.8%) and low false positive rate (8.2%). Integrating MoM values of serological indicators can appropriately increase detection rate when interpreting the results of Down syndrome screening.

A cohort study of the association between maternal serum Inhibin-A and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a population-based study

Background

To compare the rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes between women with normal and abnormal inhibin-A levels.

Methods

Based on a prospective database of Down syndrome screening program, the consecutive records were comprehensively reviewed. Pregnancies were classified into three groups: normal, high (> 2 MoM) and low (< 0.5 MoM) inhibin-A levels. The pregnancies with medical diseases, chromosome abnormalities and fetal anomalies were excluded. The primary outcomes were the rates of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction (FGR).

Results

Of 6679 recruited pregnancies, 5080 met the inclusion criteria, including 4600, 205 and 275 pregnancies in the group of normal, high, and low inhibin-A levels respectively. The rates of preterm birth, preeclampsia and FGR were significantly higher in the group of high levels; (RR, 1.51, 95%CI: 1.01–2.26; 3.47, 95% CI: 2.13–5.65; 3.04, 95% CI: 1.99–4.65 respectively), whereas the rates of other adverse outcomes were comparable. However, the rate of spontaneous preterm birth among women with high inhibin-A was not significantly increased. Based on multivariate analysis, the preterm birth rate was not significantly associated with inhibin-A levels, but it was rather a consequence of preeclampsia and FGR. Low levels of serum inhibin-A were not significantly associated with any adverse outcomes.

Conclusions

High levels of maternal serum inhibin-A in the second trimester are significantly associated with abnormal placentation, which increases the risk of preeclampsia and FGR with a consequence of indicated preterm birth but not a risk of spontaneous preterm birth. In contrast, low inhibin-A levels were not associated with any common adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Association between DSCR4 gene methylation in plasma in early pregnancy and Down's syndrome

Down's syndrome (DS), a chromosomal abnormal genetic disease caused by a local or total copy of chromosome 21, leads to patients suffering from delayed body growth, special facies, mild to moderate mental retardation and other symptoms, seriously affecting the life of patients. The aim of the present study was to examine the association between Down's syndrome critical region 4 (DSCR4) gene methylation in plasma in high-risk pregnant women with DS in early pregnancy (hereinafter referred to as pregnant women in early pregnancy) and DS, in order to screen new epigenetic markers for the clinical diagnosis of DS. DNA in peripheral blood cells and plasma in pregnant women in early pregnancy were treated with hydrosulphite. DSCR4 genes with different methylation levels were amplified by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and the methylation difference of the CpG site of the DSCR4 amplification product in peripheral blood DNA was verified via restriction endonuclease analysis. The expression of DSCR4 with different methylation levels in peripheral blood of pregnant women in early pregnancy were detected via reverse transcriptase-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), and the DSCR4 gene functions were studied via the intervention in DSCR4 expression with small interfering RNA (siRNA). Methylation-specific PCR and restriction endonuclease analysis revealed that DSCR4 genes were differentially methylated in peripheral blood DNA in pregnant women in early pregnancy. Additionally, DSCR4 showed a low methylation status in plasma but a high methylation status in peripheral blood cells. RT-qPCR revealed that non-methylated DSCR4 was highly expressed in the peripheral blood of pregnant women in early pregnancy, and thus was an epigenetic marker of fetal DS. siRNA results showed that the downregulation of DSCR4 inhibited cell migration and invasion, but had no effect on cell proliferation. The results suggest that the DSCR4 gene was differentially methylated in peripheral blood DNA in pregnant women in early pregnancy. Furthermore, DSCR4 exists in a non-methylated state in plasma and in a hyper-methylated state in blood cells. DSCR4 can therefore promote the migration and invasion of trophocytes and serve as an epigenetic marker of non invasive clinical diagnosis of DS.

Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Common fetal aneuploidies include Down syndrome (trisomy 21 or T21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18 or T18), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13 or T13), Turner syndrome (45,X), Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY), Triple X syndrome (47,XXX) and 47,XYY syndrome (47,XYY). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies is standard care in many countries, but current biochemical and ultrasound tests have high false negative and false positive rates. The discovery of fetal circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in maternal blood offers the potential for genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing (gNIPT) as a more accurate screening method. Two approaches used for gNIPT are massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS) and targeted massively parallel sequencing (TMPS).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MPSS and TMPS for gNIPT as a first-tier test in unselected populations of pregnant women undergoing aneuploidy screening or as a second-tier test in pregnant women considered to be high risk after first-tier screening for common fetal aneuploidies. The gNIPT results were confirmed by a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or neonatal clinical examination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 13 databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science) from 1 January 2007 to 12 July 2016 without any language, search filter or publication type restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant full-text articles, websites of private prenatal diagnosis companies and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies could include pregnant women of any age, ethnicity and gestational age with singleton or multifetal pregnancy. The women must have had a screening test for fetal aneuploidy by MPSS or TMPS and a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or medical records from birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool). Where possible, hierarchical models or simpler alternatives were used for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five studies of 86,139 pregnant women (3141 aneuploids and 82,998 euploids) were included. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias across the four domains of the QUADAS-2 tool but applicability concerns were generally low. Of the 65 studies, 42 enrolled pregnant women at high risk, five recruited an unselected population and 18 recruited cohorts with a mix of prior risk of fetal aneuploidy. Among the 65 studies, 44 evaluated MPSS and 21 evaluated TMPS; of these, five studies also compared gNIPT with a traditional screening test (biochemical, ultrasound or both). Forty-six out of 65 studies (71%) reported gNIPT assay failure rate, which ranged between 0% and 25% for MPSS, and between 0.8% and 7.5% for TMPS.In the population of unselected pregnant women, MPSS was evaluated by only one study; the study assessed T21, T18 and T13. TMPS was assessed for T21 in four studies involving unselected cohorts; three of the studies also assessed T18 and 13. In pooled analyses (88 T21 cases, 22 T18 cases, eight T13 cases and 20,649 unaffected pregnancies (non T21, T18 and T13)), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of TMPS was 99.2% (78.2% to 100%), 90.9% (70.0% to 97.7%) and 65.1% (9.16% to 97.2%) for T21, T18 and T13, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificity was above 99.9% for T21, T18 and T13.In high-risk populations, MPSS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in 30, 28, 20 and 12 studies, respectively. In pooled analyses (1048 T21 cases, 332 T18 cases, 128 T13 cases and 15,797 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of MPSS was 99.7% (98.0% to 100%), 97.8% (92.5% to 99.4%), 95.8% (86.1% to 98.9%) and 91.7% (78.3% to 97.1%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificities (95% CI) were 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.8% (99.8% to 99.9%) and 99.6% (98.9% to 99.8%). In this risk group, TMPS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in six, five, two and four studies. In pooled analyses (246 T21 cases, 112 T18 cases, 20 T13 cases and 4282 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% CI) of TMPS was 99.2% (96.8% to 99.8%), 98.2% (93.1% to 99.6%), 100% (83.9% to 100%) and 92.4% (84.1% to 96.5%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X respectively. The clinical specificities were above 100% for T21, T18 and T13 and 99.8% (98.3% to 100%) for 45,X. Indirect comparisons of MPSS and TMPS for T21, T18 and 45,X showed no statistical difference in clinical sensitivity, clinical specificity or both. Due to limited data, comparative meta-analysis of MPSS and TMPS was not possible for T13.We were unable to perform meta-analyses of gNIPT for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY because there were very few or no studies in one or more risk groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These results show that MPSS and TMPS perform similarly in terms of clinical sensitivity and specificity for the detection of fetal T31, T18, T13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA). However, no study compared the two approaches head-to-head in the same cohort of patients. The accuracy of gNIPT as a prenatal screening test has been mainly evaluated as a second-tier screening test to identify pregnancies at very low risk of fetal aneuploidies (T21, T18 and T13), thus avoiding invasive procedures. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing methods appear to be sensitive and highly specific for detection of fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in high-risk populations. There is paucity of data on the accuracy of gNIPT as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test in a population of unselected pregnant women. With respect to the replacement of invasive tests, the performance of gNIPT observed in this review is not sufficient to replace current invasive diagnostic tests.We conclude that given the current data on the performance of gNIPT, invasive fetal karyotyping is still the required diagnostic approach to confirm the presence of a chromosomal abnormality prior to making irreversible decisions relative to the pregnancy outcome. However, most of the gNIPT studies were prone to bias, especially in terms of the selection of participants.

Combined detection of α-fetoprotein and free β-human chorionic gonadotropin in screening for trisomy 21 and management of cases in the moderate risk value range

Down syndrome is the most common cause of prenatal chromosomal abnormalities, and prenatal serum screening is an effective method for decreasing the birth prevalence of children with Down syndrome. The aim of the present study was to observe the effect of duplex screening and investigate the treatment of cases under specific conditions. The medians of free β-human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) were calculated and compared with those embedded in the 2T software. The detection and false-positive rates were analyzed under different conditions, and the distribution of Down syndrome cases was investigated in different risk ranges. Finally, suitable recommendations for further diagnostic investigation were provided according to the status of each individual. The medians of free β-HCG and AFP were found to differ from the corresponding medians embedded in the 2T software (P<0.01), and on the basis of a 5% false-positive rate, the detection rate would increase from 63.6 to 67.8% when compared with medians embedded in the 2T software, indicating we should establish our own medians of free β-HCG and AFP. In addition, residual cases (risk value <1/300) with relevant Down syndrome indications mainly concentrated at risk values between 1/1,000 and 1/300, and partial residual screening cases were verified through diverse methods. These findings indicated that different laboratories should establish their own medians; furthermore, what is classed as moderate risk is extremely important in screening for Down syndrome and reasonable recommendations may be offered under different conditions.

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.

A prospective clinical trial to compare the performance of dried blood spots prenatal screening for Down's syndrome with conventional non-invasive testing technology

To evaluate, side by side, the efficiency of dried blood spots (DBSs) against serum screening for Down's syndrome, and then, to construct a two-tier strategy by topping up the fetal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) secondary screening over the high-risk women marked by the primary blood testing to build a practical screening tactic to identify fetal Down's syndrome. One thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven low-risk Chinese women, with singleton pregnancy, were enrolled for the study. Alpha-fetoprotein and free beta human chorionic gonadotropin were measured for the serum as well as for the parallel DBS samples. Partial high-risk pregnant women identified by primary blood testing (n = 38) were also subject to the secondary cfDNA screening. Diagnostic amniocentesis was utilized to confirm the screening results. The true positive rate for Down's syndrome detection was 100% for both blood screening methods; however, the false-positive rate was 3.0% for DBS and 4.0% for serum screening, respectively. DBS correlated well with serum screening on Down's syndrome detection. Three out of 38 primary high-risk women displayed chromosomal abnormalities by cfDNA analysis, which were confirmed by amniocentesis. Either the true detection rate or the false-positive rate for Down's syndrome between DBS and the serum test is comparable. In addition, blood primary screening aligned with secondary cfDNA analysis, a "before and after" two-tier screening strategy, can massively decrease the false-positive rate, which, then, dramatically reduces the demand for invasive diagnostic operation. Impact statement Children born with Down's syndrome display a wide range of mental and physical disability. Currently, there is no effective treatment to ease the burden and anxiety of the Down's syndrome family and the surrounding society. This study is to evaluate the efficiency of dried blood spots against serum screening for Down's syndrome and to construct a two-tier strategy by topping up the fetal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) secondary screening over the high-risk women marked by the primary blood testing to build a practical screening tactic to identify fetal Down's syndrome. Results demonstrate that fetal cfDNA can significantly reduce false-positive rate close to none while distinguishing all true positives. Thus, we recommend that fetal cfDNA analysis to be utilized as a secondary screening tool atop of the primary blood protein screening to further minimize the capacity of undesirable invasive diagnostic operations.

Urine 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 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. The risk of a Down's syndrome affected pregnancy increases with advancing maternal age.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. 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 and second trimester urine markers for the detection of Down's syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out 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 2011, Issue 7), 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 studied reference lists and published review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating tests of maternal urine in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.

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 (receiver operating characteristic) meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. We performed analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies involving 18,013 pregnancies (including 527 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Twenty-four test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of the following seven different markers with and without maternal age: AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), ß-core fragment, free ßhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), total hCG, oestriol, gonadotropin peptide and various marker ratios. The strategies evaluated included three double tests and seven single tests in combination with maternal age, and one triple test, two double tests and 11 single tests without maternal age. Twelve of the 19 studies only evaluated the performance of a single test strategy while the remaining seven evaluated at least two test strategies. Two marker combinations were evaluated in more than four studies; second trimester ß-core fragment (six studies), and second trimester ß-core fragment with maternal age (five studies).In direct test comparisons, for a 5% false positive rate (FPR), the diagnostic accuracy of the double marker second trimester ß-core fragment and oestriol with maternal age test combination was significantly better (ratio of diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR): 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 4.5), P = 0.02) (summary sensitivity of 73% (CI 57 to 85) at a cut-point of 5% FPR) than that of the single marker test strategy of second trimester ß-core fragment and maternal age (summary sensitivity of 56% (CI 45 to 66) at a cut-point of 5% FPR), but was not significantly better (RDOR: 1.5 (0.8 to 2.8), P = 0.21) than that of the second trimester ß-core fragment to oestriol ratio and maternal age test strategy (summary sensitivity of 71% (CI 51 to 86) at a cut-point of 5% FPR).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving second trimester ß-core fragment and oestriol with maternal age are significantly more sensitive than the single marker second trimester ß-core fragment and maternal age, however, there were few studies. There is a paucity of evidence available to support the use of urine testing for Down's syndrome screening in clinical practice where alternatives are available.

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.

The endocrine function of human placenta: an overview

During pregnancy, several tightly coordinated and regulated processes take place to enable proper fetal development and gestational success. The formation and development of the placenta is one of these critical pregnancy events. This organ plays essential roles during gestation, including fetal nourishment, support and protection, gas exchange and production of several hormones and other mediators. Placental hormones are mainly secreted by the syncytiotrophoblast, in a highly and tightly regulated way. These hormones are important for pregnancy establishment and maintenance, exerting autocrine and paracrine effects that regulate decidualization, placental development, angiogenesis, endometrial receptivity, embryo implantation, immunotolerance and fetal development. In addition, because they are released into maternal circulation, the profile of their blood levels throughout pregnancy has been the target of intense research towards finding potential robust and reliable biomarkers to predict and diagnose pregnancy-associated complications. In fact, altered levels of these hormones have been associated with some pathologies, such as chromosomal anomalies or pre-eclampsia. This review proposes to revise and update the main pregnancy-related hormones, addressing their major characteristics, molecular targets, function throughout pregnancy, regulators of their expression and their potential clinical interest.

Screening for Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy

Antenatal screening for fetal anomalies has provided women and their partners with information to make reproductive choices based on the risk of serious chromosomal or structural defects since the 1990s. Alternative tests include first-trimester screening (combined ultrasound and maternal serum markers), second-trimester maternal serum markers and noninvasive cell-free DNA testing. The recent recommendations by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the Human Genetics Society of Australasia against second-trimester triple testing are based on unsound performance criteria, raise several contestable issues around access and equity and challenge the principles of governments providing affordable options.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for triple markers serum screening for Down's syndrome in Thai setting

BACKGROUND:

Down's syndrome is an important congenital chromosomal disorder that can be seen around the world. The antenatal screening for this disorder is an important processing in present obstetrics.

OBJECTIVE:

Due to the concept of first do no harm, the use of noninvasive test is recommended. The triple marker screening test has been introduced for a few years and acceptable for its efficacy.

RESULT:

However, an important concern is on its cost-effectiveness. Here, the author analyze and present the cost-effectiveness of the triple markers serum screening for Down's syndrome in Thai setting.

CONCLUSION:

According to this work, the cost per effectiveness of triple markers serum screening is slightly lower than standard amniocentesis test.