Accuracy of nuchal translucency measurement depends on equipment used and its calibration

Gestational length assignment based on last menstrual period, first trimester crown-rump length, ovulation, and implantation timing

PURPOSE

Understanding the natural length of human pregnancy is central to clinical care. However, variability in the reference methods to assign gestational age (GA) confound our understanding of pregnancy length. Assignation from ultrasound measurement of fetal crown-rump length (CRL) has superseded that based on last menstrual period (LMP). Our aim was to estimate gestational length based on LMP, ultrasound CRL, and implantation that were known, compared to pregnancy duration assigned by day of ovulation.

METHODS

Prospective study in 143 women trying to conceive. In 71 ongoing pregnancies, gestational length was estimated from LMP, CRL at 10-14 weeks, ovulation, and implantation day. For each method of GA assignment, the distribution in observed gestational length was derived and both agreement and correlation between the methods determined.

RESULTS

Median ovulation and implantation days were 16 and 27, respectively. The gestational length based on LMP, CRL, implantation, and ovulation was similar: 279, 278, 276.5 and 276.5 days, respectively. The distributions for observed gestational length were widest where GA was assigned from CRL and LMP and narrowest when assigned from implantation and ovulation day. The strongest correlation for gestational length assessment was between ovulation and implantation (r = 0.98) and weakest between CRL and LMP (r = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The most accurate method of predicting gestational length is ovulation day, and this agrees closely with implantation day. Prediction of gestational length from CRL and known LMP are both inferior to ovulation and implantation day. This information could have important implications on the routine assignment of gestational age.

Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis

BACKGROUND

The first- and second-trimester screening for trisomy 21 (T21) are reimbursed for all pregnant women in Belgium. Using a cut-off risk of 1:300 for T21, about 5% of all pregnant women are referred for definitive prenatal diagnosis using an invasive test, at a sensitivity of (only) 72.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) are over 99% but come at a cost of €460 (£373) per test. The objective is to estimate the consequences of introducing NIPT for the detection of T21.

METHODS

A cost-consequences analysis was performed presenting the impact on benefits, harms and costs. Context-specific real-world information was available to set up a model reflecting the current screening situation in Belgium. This model was used to construct the second and first line NIPT screening scenarios applying information from the literature on NIPT's test accuracy.

RESULTS

Introducing NIPT in the first or second line reduces harm by decreasing the number of procedure-related miscarriages after invasive testing. In contrast with NIPT in the second line, offering NIPT in the first line additionally will miss fewer cases of T21 due to less false-negative test results. The introduction of NIPT in the second line results in cost savings, which is not true for NIPT at the current price in the first line. If NIPT is offered to all pregnant women, the price should be lowered to about €150 to keep the screening cost per T21 diagnosis constant.

CONCLUSIONS

In Belgium, the introduction and reimbursement of NIPT as a second line triage test significantly reduces procedure-related miscarriages without increasing the short-term screening costs. Offering and reimbursing NIPT in the first line to all pregnant women is preferred in the long term, as it would, in addition, miss fewer cases of T21. However, taking into account the government's limited resources for universal reimbursement, the price of NIPT should first be lowered substantially before this can be realised.