The value of detailed first-trimester ultrasound in the era of noninvasive prenatal testing

Pearls and Pitfalls of First-Trimester US Screening and Prenatal Testing: A Pictorial Review

First-trimester US is imperative in evaluation of early pregnancy to confirm pregnancy location and number and gestational age. The 2024 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus conference established a first-trimester lexicon to highlight the importance of clear and concise language, which is incorporated and featured by the authors. With improved technologies and understanding of fetal development, first-trimester anatomic studies, between 11 weeks and 13 weeks 6 days gestation, are becoming more frequently used. While not a replacement for the second-trimester anatomic study, systematic evaluation of fetal anatomy at this early gestational age allows detection of 40%-70% of anomalies, whether structural or related to aneuploidy. All patients, regardless of age or baseline risk, should be offered screening and diagnostic testing for chromosomal abnormalities. A variety of prenatal screening approaches are available, each with strengths and limitations. Noninvasive prenatal testing with detection of fetal cell-free DNA can be performed in the first trimester and is the most sensitive and specific screening for the common fetal aneuploidies, but is not equivalent to diagnostic testing. Alternatively, serum analytes for maternal biomarkers in conjunction with nuchal translucency (NT) measurement can be used to calculate a risk estimate for common trisomies. Increased NT is the most common abnormality seen in the first trimester. Positive screening results, increased NT, or other anomaly at US should prompt genetic counseling and be confirmed with diagnostic testing (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis). Early detection of aneuploidy and structural anomalies allows counseling and informs decisions for pregnancy management. ©RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Differential Diagnosis of Hydrops Fetalis: An Imaging Guide

Hydrops fetalis is a critical diagnosis given the poor prognosis and vast differential of potential causes. After a detailed anatomic survey, the first step in differentiating among the various causes is measurement of the middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity to evaluate for anemia. Anemia is the key decision point in the diagnostic algorithm that categorizes hydrops. This approach is more practical than an immune versus nonimmune classification because it capitalizes on clues available at the time of sonographic diagnosis and expedites care toward possible therapies, such as intrauterine transfusion. The causes of hydrops that share the underlying physiology of fetal anemia include alloimmunization, which accounts for 10% of cases, congenital infections, hemoglobinopathies, and fetomaternal hemorrhage. After ruling out anemia, the differential diagnosis expands to cardiovascular disorders (20%-28% of cases), genetic abnormalities (10%-30% of cases), fetal masses (eg, congenital lung masses, sacrococcygeal teratomas), and monochorionic twin complications. Even after a thorough evaluation, 15% of hydrops cases remain of unknown cause. There are treatments available for select disorders that have the potential to reverse the signs of hydrops. Several imaging pitfalls should be avoided when establishing the diagnosis of hydrops, such as mistaking abdominal wall muscles, physiologic pericardial fluid, or thick subcutaneous tissue as pathologic fluid accumulation. A practical and comprehensive approach to the diagnostic evaluation for hydrops fetalis avoids delays in diagnosis and expedites potential life-saving treatment of this disorder. ©RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Prenatal Screening and Diagnosis: Time for a Paradigm Shift

Recent advances in genetics and imaging have ushered substantial breakthroughs in screening and diagnosis for chromosomal and structural abnormalities. Thus, it is imperative that health care providers caring for pregnant individuals should reexamine established practices in prenatal screening and diagnosis. In the past, screening for chromosomal abnormalities was based almost entirely on Down syndrome. Pregnant individuals aged > 35 years were considered at "high risk" or of "advanced maternal age" based on age alone; however, the advent of tests with high sensitivity for prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities should lead to abandoning that concept, at least from the perspective of chromosomal abnormalities. Given that first-trimester and second-trimester screenings will fail to detect between 5 and 20% of Down syndrome, in most situations, noninvasive testing with cell-free DNA should be the first-line screen for Down syndrome. The fact that over 99% of fetuses with Down syndrome will be detected prenatally with cell-free DNA gives other fetal chromosomal and structural abnormalities increasing prominence. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) permits prenatal detection of several clinically important chromosomal aberrations that cannot be detected by karyotype and may exist in structurally normal fetuses with low-risk cell-free DNA screening. As such, CMA should be more readily conducted when invasive testing is performed, regardless of the presence of a structural abnormality. Isolated sonographic "soft markers" have no clinical significance in patients who have normal cell-free DNA screening, can cause unwarranted anxiety and a negative impact on pregnancy, and perhaps it is time to stop discussing them. Detailed first-trimester ultrasound allows early detection of several severe fetal anomalies and, therefore, in settings with adequately trained personnel and resources, should be used more frequently. This opinion traces the evolution of prenatal screening and diagnosis and advocates for a paradigm shift that aligns with recent developments in prenatal screening and diagnostic capabilities. KEY POINTS: · Noninvasive prenatal testing with cell-free DNA should be available to all pregnant individuals.. · Chromosomal microarray should be available to all pregnant individuals undergoing amniocentesis.. · Patients >35 years with low-risk screening are not at "high risk" for chromosomal abnormalities..

Guideline No. 456: Prenatal Screening for Fetal Chromosomal Anomalies

OBJECTIVE

To review the available prenatal aneuploidy screening options and to provide updated clinical guidelines for reproductive care providers.

TARGET POPULATION

All pregnant persons receiving counselling and providing informed consent for prenatal screening.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Implementation of the recommendations in this guideline should increase clinician competency to offer counselling for prenatal screening options and provide appropriate interventions. Given the variety of available options for prenatal screening with different performance, cost, and availability across Canada, appropriate counselling is of paramount importance to offer the best individual choice to Canadian pregnant persons. Prenatal screening may cause anxiety, and the decisions about prenatal diagnostic procedures are complex given the potential risk of fetal loss.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library in and prior to July 2023, using an appropriate controlled vocabulary (prenatal diagnosis, amniocentesis, chorionic villi sampling, non-invasive prenatal screening) and key words (prenatal screening, prenatal genetic counselling). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies written in English and published from January 1995 to July 2023.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Health care providers involved in prenatal screening, including general practitioners, obstetricians, midwives, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, and radiologists.

SOCIAL MEDIA ABSTRACT

Non-invasive prenatal screening is the most accurate method for detecting major aneuploidies. It is not universally available in the public health system and has some limitations.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Antenatal screening for fetal structural anomalies - Routine or targeted practice?

Antenatal screening with ultrasound identifies fetal structural anomalies in 3-6% of pregnancies. Identification of anomalies during pregnancy provides an opportunity for counselling, targeted imaging, genetic testing, fetal intervention and delivery planning. Ultrasound is the primary modality for imaging the fetus in pregnancy, but magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is evolving as an adjunctive tool providing additional structural and functional information. Screening should start from the first trimester when more than 50% of severe defects can be detected. The mid-trimester ultrasound balances the benefits of increased fetal growth and development to improve detection rates, whilst still providing timely management options. A routine third trimester ultrasound may detect acquired anomalies or those missed earlier in pregnancy but may not be available in all settings. Targeted imaging by fetal medicine experts improves detection in high-risk pregnancies or when an anomaly has been detected, allowing accurate phenotyping, access to advanced genetic testing and expert counselling.

First-Trimester Ultrasound Screening in Routine Obstetric Practice

Technologic advances and ultrasonographer-physician experience in fetal imaging have led to significant improvements in our ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal fetal structural development in the latter part of the first trimester. As a critical component of pregnancy care, assessment of fetal anatomy at the end of the first trimester with a standardized imaging protocol should be offered to all pregnant patients regardless of aneuploidy screening results because it has been demonstrated to identify approximately half of fetal structural malformations. Early identification of abnormalities allows focused genetic counseling, timely diagnostic testing, and subspecialist consultation. In addition, a normal ultrasound examination result offers some degree of reassurance to most patients. Use of cell-free DNA alone for aneuploidy screening while foregoing an accompanying early anatomic evaluation of the fetus will result in many anomalies that are typically detected in the first trimester not being identified until later in pregnancy, thus potentially diminishing the quality of obstetric care for pregnant individuals and possibly limiting their reproductive options, including pregnancy termination.

Eliminating first trimester combined testing: Consequences for early detection of significant fetal anomalies

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing for aneuploidy as a first-tier test and subsequent abolition of first trimester combined testing (FCT) affected the first trimester detection (<14 weeks) of certain fetal anomalies.

METHODS

We performed a geographical cohort study in two Fetal Medicine Units between 2011 and 2020, including 705 fetuses with prenatally detected severe brain, abdominal wall and congenital heart defects. Cases were divided into two groups: before (n = 396) and after (n = 309) cfDNA introduction. The primary outcome was the first trimester detection rate (<14 weeks) overall and for non-chromosomal anomalies solely.

RESULTS

Overall, gastroschisis, AVSD and HLHS were detected more often in the first trimester in the before group compared to the after group, respectively 54.5% versus 18.5% (p = 0.004), 45.9% versus 26.9% (p = 0.008) and 30% versus 3.4% (p = 0.005). After exclusion of chromosomal anomalies identifiable through cfDNA testing, the detection of AVSD remained higher in the before group (43.3% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.02), leading to a possible earlier gestation at termination. The termination of pregnancy (TOP) rate did not differ among the groups. In the after group, referrals for suspected anomalies following a dating scan between 11 and 14 weeks significantly increased from 17.4% to 29.1% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the value of a scan dedicated to fetal anatomy in the first trimester as we observed a decline in the early detection of certain fetal anomalies (detectable in the first trimester) subsequent to the abolition of FCT.