Stepwise sequential screening for fetal aneuploidy

Non-invasive prenatal screening: A 20-year experience in Italy

Over the past two decades, there has been a rapid evolution in prenatal screening for fetal chromosome abnormalities. Initially, testing was focused on the identification of affected pregnancies in either the first, or, the second trimester (e.g. the Combined test or the triple test). This was replaced by sequential modalities (e.g. contingent screening) that have enhanced detection while reducing the need for invasive testing. More recently, the introduction of technologies based on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma and enrichment of fetal cells in maternal circulation have further refined the concept of sequential screening. In this review, we document our experience with serum and ultrasound-based contingent screening where we were able to achieve a detection rate of 96.8%, a false-positive rate of 2.8% and an odds of being affected given a positive result of 1:11. We also describe our initial experience with a novel sequential protocol that includes the analysis of fetal cells in maternal blood. Methods for enrichment for fetal cells cfDNA and cfDNA technologies offer the possibility of greater sensitivity and specificity as well as expansion in the scope of genetic disorders detectable. As costs decline, these technologies will become increasingly used as primary screening tools. In the meantime, sequential use offers a practical approach to maximizing the benefits of prenatal testing.

Sequential combined test, second trimester maternal serum markers, and circulating fetal cells to select women for invasive prenatal diagnosis

From January 1^st 2013 to August 31^st 2016, 24408 pregnant women received the first trimester Combined test and contingently offered second trimester maternal serum screening to identify those women who would most benefit from invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD). The screening was based on first trimester cut-offs of ≥1:30 (IPD indicated), 1:31 to 1:899 (second trimester screening indicated) and ≤1:900 (no further action), and a second trimester cut-off of ≥1:250. From January 2014, analysis of fetal cells from peripheral maternal blood was also offered to women with positive screening results. For fetal Down syndrome, the overall detection rate was 96.8% for a false-positive rate of 2.8% resulting in an odds of being affected given a positive result (OAPR) of 1:11, equivalent to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 8.1%. Additional chromosome abnormalities were also identified resulting in an OAPR for any chromosome abnormality of 1:6.6 (PPV 11.9%). For a sub-set of cases with positive contingent test results, FISH analysis of circulating fetal cells in maternal circulation identified 7 abnormal and 39 as normal cases with 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity. We conclude that contingent screening using conventional Combined and second trimester screening tests is effective but can potentially be considerably enhanced through the addition of fetal cell analysis.

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.

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.

Beyond Trisomy 21: Additional Chromosomal Anomalies Detected through Routine Aneuploidy Screening

Prenatal screening is often misconstrued by patients as screening for trisomy 21 alone; however, other chromosomal anomalies are often detected. This study aimed to systematically review the literature and use diagnostic meta-analysis to derive pooled detection and false positive rates for aneuploidies other than trisomy 21 with different prenatal screening tests. Non-invasive prenatal testing had the highest detection (DR) and lowest false positive (FPR) rates for trisomy 13 (DR: 90.3%; FPR: 0.2%), trisomy 18 (DR: 98.1%; FPR: 0.2%), and 45,X (DR: 92.2%; FPR: 0.1%); however, most estimates came from high-risk samples. The first trimester combined test also had high DRs for all conditions studied (trisomy 13 DR: 83.1%; FPR: 4.4%; trisomy 18 DR: 91.9%; FPR: 3.5%; 45,X DR: 70.1%; FPR: 5.4%; triploidy DR: 100%; FPR: 6.3%). Second trimester triple screening had the lowest DRs and highest FPRs for all conditions (trisomy 13 DR: 43.9%; FPR: 8.1%; trisomy 18 DR: 70.5%; FPR: 3.3%; 45,X DR: 77.2%; FPR: 9.3%). Prenatal screening tests differ in their ability to accurately detect chromosomal anomalies. Patients should be counseled about the ability of prenatal screening to detect anomalies other than trisomy 21 prior to undergoing screening.

Efficacy of the genetic sonogram in a stepwise sequential protocol for down syndrome screening

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the genetic sonogram in Down syndrome screening for women who have received the stepwise sequential test.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included women with singleton pregnancies who underwent stepwise sequential (first-trimester combined and second-trimester serum) screening and then had a genetic sonogram between March 2005 and January 2010. Stepwise sequential Down syndrome risks were multiplied by either a positive or negative likelihood ratio based on the second-trimester sonographic findings to determine the final Down syndrome risk. A final Down syndrome risk of 1:270 or higher was considered screen positive.

RESULTS

A total of 6286 women fulfilled our criteria, including 17 with Down syndrome-affected fetuses. After stepwise sequential testing, the Down syndrome detection rate was 88.2% (15 of 17), and after the genetic sonogram, there was a non-significant reduction in detection to 82.4% (14 of 17; P > .05). For the 6269 unaffected pregnancies, the genetic sonogram converted 58 screen-negative results (1%) to positive and 183 screen-positive results (3.1%) to negative. The net effect was a change in the false-positive rate from 6.2% (390 of 6269) after stepwise sequential screening to 4.2% (266 of 6269) after the genetic sonogram.

CONCLUSIONS

The genetic sonogram should be applied cautiously for women who have received prior prenatal screening tests. Women with screen-positive results need to be counseled that a negative sonographic result can be falsely reassuring. Conversely, for women with screen-negative results who have a risk close to the cutoff, a sonographic examination could assist in the decision of whether to accept or reject amniocentesis.

Optimal cut-offs for Down syndrome contingent screening in a population of 10,156 pregnant women

STUDY DESIGN

A population of 10,156 pregnant women with singleton pregnancies were screened by the integrated test. Risks were retrospectively recalculated for contingent test strategies with first step intermediate risk groups defined by first trimester upper cut-offs of 1 : 10, 1 : 30, 1 : 50, and 1 : 70 and lower cut-offs 1 : 1500, 1 : 1200, 1 : 1100, and 1 : 900. The second trimester high risk group was based on a single cut-off of 1 : 250.

RESULTS

In the first trimester, the detection rate (DR) ranged from 21% (6/29) to 52% (15/29) as the high risk first trimester cut-off was changed from 1 : 10 to 1 : 70. The corresponding first trimester false positive rate (FPR) increased from 0.2% to 1.4%. In the second trimester, an additional 21/29 (72%) to 12/29 (41%) affected pregnancies could be detected with an additional 1.6% to 2.7% false positives when lower first trimester cut-offs of 1 : 900 to 1 : 1500 were used. The best results were obtained with the upper first trimester cut-off of 1 : 30 and lower first trimester cut-off of 1 : 900, which yielded a rate of women requiring a second trimester test of only 12%, with overall DR and FPR of 93% and 2.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the study population was relatively small, the results confirm the advantage of using contingent screening and suggest optimal first trimester cut-offs of 1 : 30 (lower cut-off) and 1 : 900 (upper cut-off).

Stepwise sequential aneuploidy screening in clinical practice

PURPOSE

To evaluate stepwise sequential screening (SSS) efficiency in clinical practice.

METHODS

All singletons undergoing SSS in a single practice by NTQR (Nuchal Translucency Quality Review Program)-credentialed providers in a 2-year period were included. Prenatal diagnosis was offered to all screen-positive women and those with a nuchal translucency ≥3.5 mm or cystic hygroma at the 11- to 14-week scan. Data were extracted from prospectively ascertained serum screening and genetics databases.

RESULTS

A total of 2,726 patients were screened, with SSS detecting all eight cases of trisomy 21 and all seven cases of other aneuploidies at a 4.3% screen-positive rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise sequential screening offers excellent aneuploidy screening efficiency when introduced into clinical practice.

Comparison of combined, stepwise sequential, contingent, and integrated screening in 7292 high-risk pregnant women

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of combined, stepwise sequential, and contingent screening versus the integrated test in detecting fetal aneuploidies.

STUDY DESIGN

First trimester combined test, sequential second trimester, and contingent risks were retrospectively calculated for 7292 unselected pregnant women with singleton pregnancies who had received integrated screening. The first trimester testing was based on nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, and free-beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (free β-hCG) and the second trimester tests were alpha-fetoprotein, hCG, and unconjugated estriol. A second trimester risk of 1:250 defined a positive result for all protocols with the contingent protocol based on additional second trimester testing for those with risks between 1:30 and 1:1200.

RESULTS

Among the population submitted for the integrated test, the detection rate was 19/21 (90%) for Down syndrome (DS) and 6/6 (100%) for Edwards syndrome (ES) and the DS false-positive rate (FPR) was 247/7271 (3.4%). Provision of the first trimester combined test alone would have resulted in a 17/21 (81%) detection rate for DS, that of 4/6 (67%) for ES and a DS FPR of 292/7271 (4.0%). The sequential and contingent approaches had the same final detection rates as the integrated test but potentially allowed a high proportion of the affected pregnancies to be detected in the first trimester. The lowest net DS FPR was seen with the contingent approach (2.6%) and using this protocol only 12.7% of women would have required second trimester testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated, sequential, and contingent screenings are all more efficacious than the combined test. Overall, the contingent approach was the most efficient with a high-detection rate, the lowest FPR, and the least amount of testing.

Prospective experience with contingent screening strategy for Down syndrome in Estonia

The purpose of this study was to establish the first-trimester screening for Down syndrome (DS) in Estonia and to evaluate the potential of a contingent screening in the population of pregnant women. A prospective cohort study included non-selected pregnancies during the programme of first-trimester screening for DS in a 4-year period at a single centre. The following screening tests were evaluated: measurement of nuchal translucency (NT) and serum screening [pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (fβ-HCG)]; results were given as combined screening. After first-trimester screening, contingent screening protocol was used, and women were divided into three groups: high risk, low risk and an intermediate risk group. In the last group, a second-trimester triple test (AFP; total HCG and uE3) was also performed. The study group consisted of 3,194 non-selected pregnancies. In 1,387 (43.4%) women, first-trimester serum screening showed low risk (risk ≤ 1:5,000), and no future testing was performed, in 30 (0.9%) women screening test showed high risk (risk ≥ 1:50) and a diagnostic test was offered, and in 1,777 (55.7%) women repeated risk calculation in the second trimester was done. During the study period, there were 17 cases of trisomy 21, of which 15 (88.3%) were detected with the described screening programme. In conclusion, two-step contingent sequential screening is a better choice for Down syndrome screening in Estonia instead of previously used second-trimester screening, and it offers the advantage of earlier diagnosis.

Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA

Prenatal testing for Down Syndrome is a topic covered in every genetic counselor's training as it constitutes the main workload of genetic counselors in prenatal settings. Most Western countries nowadays offer some type of testing for Down Syndrome. However, practices vary according to country with regards to what tests are offered, insurance coverage and the legal situation concerning the option of terminating an affected pregnancy. In view of the growing interest in international genetic counseling issues, this article aims to compare prenatal testing practices in two English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A case will be presented to highlight some of the differences in practice. The topic underlines important implications for genetic counseling practice, such as patients' understanding of testing practices, risk perception, counseling provision and impact of prenatal testing results.