Indication-specific accuracy of second-trimester genetic ultrasonography for the detection of trisomy 21

No. 261-Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy in Singleton Pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Canadian consensus document on maternal screening for fetal aneuploidy (e.g., Down syndrome and trisomy 18) in singleton pregnancies.

OPTIONS

Pregnancy screening for fetal aneuploidy started in the mid 1960s, using maternal age as the screening test. New developments in maternal serum and ultrasound screening have made it possible to offer all pregnant patients a non-invasive screening test to assess their risk of having a fetus with aneuploidy to determine whether invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is necessary. This document reviews the options available for non-invasive screening and makes recommendations for Canadian patients and health care workers.

OUTCOMES

To offer non-invasive screening for fetal aneuploidy (trisomy 13, 18, 21) to all pregnant women. Invasive prenatal diagnosis would be offered to women who screen above a set risk cut-off level on non-invasive screening or to pregnant women whose personal, obstetrical, or family history places them at increased risk. Currently available non-invasive screening options include maternal age combined with one of the following: (1) first trimester screening (nuchal translucency, maternal age, and maternal serum biochemical markers), (2) second trimester serum screening (maternal age and maternal serum biochemical markers), or (3) 2-step integrated screening, which includes first and second trimester serum screening with or without nuchal translucency (integrated prenatal screen, serum integrated prenatal screening, contingent, and sequential). These options are reviewed, and recommendations are made.

EVIDENCE

Studies published between 1982 and 2009 were retrieved through searches of PubMed or Medline and CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (aneuploidy, Down syndrome, trisomy, prenatal screening, genetic health risk, genetic health surveillance, prenatal diagnosis). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and relevant observational studies. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment- related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. The previous Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guidelines regarding prenatal screening were also reviewed in developing this clinical practice guideline.

VALUES

The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

This guideline is intended to reduce the number of prenatal invasive procedures done when maternal age is the only indication. This will have the benefit of reducing the numbers of normal pregnancies lost because of complications of invasive procedures. Any screening test has an inherent false- positive rate, which may result in undue anxiety. It is not possible at this time to undertake a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of this guideline, since this would require health surveillance and research and health resources not presently available; however, these factors need to be evaluated in a prospective approach by provincial and territorial initiatives.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Canadian consensus document on maternal screening for fetal aneuploidy (e.g., Down syndrome and trisomy 18) in singleton pregnancies.

OPTIONS

Pregnancy screening for fetal aneuploidy started in the mid 1960s, using maternal age as the screening test. New developments in maternal serum and ultrasound screening have made it possible to offer all pregnant patients a non-invasive screening test to assess their risk of having a fetus with aneuploidy to determine whether invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is necessary. This document reviews the options available for non-invasive screening and makes recommendations for Canadian patients and health care workers.

OUTCOMES

To offer non-invasive screening for fetal aneuploidy (trisomy 13, 18, 21) to all pregnant women. Invasive prenatal diagnosis would be offered to women who screen above a set risk cut-off level on non-invasive screening or to pregnant women whose personal, obstetrical, or family history places them at increased risk. Currently available non-invasive screening options include maternal age combined with one of the following: (1) first trimester screening (nuchal translucency, maternal age, and maternal serum biochemical markers), (2) second trimester serum screening (maternal age and maternal serum biochemical markers), or (3) 2-step integrated screening, which includes first and second trimester serum screening with or without nuchal translucency (integrated prenatal screen, serum integrated prenatal screening, contingent, and sequential). These options are reviewed, and recommendations are made.

EVIDENCE

Studies published between 1982 and 2009 were retrieved through searches of PubMed or Medline and CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (aneuploidy, Down syndrome, trisomy, prenatal screening, genetic health risk, genetic health surveillance, prenatal diagnosis). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and relevant observational studies. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. The previous Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guidelines regarding prenatal screening were also reviewed in developing this clinical practice guideline.

VALUES

The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

This guideline is intended to reduce the number of prenatal invasive procedures done when maternal age is the only indication. This will have the benefit of reducing the numbers of normal pregnancies lost because of complications of invasive procedures. Any screening test has an inherent false-positive rate, which may result in undue anxiety. It is not possible at this time to undertake a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of this guideline, since this would require health surveillance and research and health resources not presently available; however, these factors need to be evaluated in a prospective approach by provincial and territorial initiatives. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All pregnant women in Canada, regardless of age, should be offered, through an informed counselling process, the option of a prenatal screening test for the most common clinically significant fetal aneuploidies in addition to a second trimester ultrasound for dating, assessment of fetal anatomy, and detection of multiples. (I-A) 2. Counselling must be non-directive and must respect a woman's right to accept or decline any or all of the testing or options offered at any point in the process. (III-A) 3. Maternal age alone is a poor minimum standard for prenatal screening for aneuploidy, and it should not be used a basis for recommending invasive testing when non-invasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy is available. (II-2A) 4. Invasive prenatal diagnosis for cytogenetic analysis should not be performed without multiple marker screening results except for women who are at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy (a) because of ultrasound findings, (b) because the pregnancy was conceived by in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or (c) because the woman or her partner has a history of a previous child or fetus with a chromosomal abnormality or is a carrier of a chromosome rearrangement that increases the risk of having a fetus with a chromosomal abnormality. (II-2E) 5. At minimum, any prenatal screen offered to Canadian women who present for care in the first trimester should have a detection rate of 75% with no more than a 3% false-positive rate. The performance of the screen should be substantiated by annual audit. (III-B) 6. The minimum standard for women presenting in the second trimester should be a screen that has a detection rate of 75% with no more than a 5% false-positive rate. The performance of the screen should be substantiated by annual audit. (III-B) 7. First trimester nuchal translucency should be interpreted for risk assessment only when measured by sonographers or sonologists trained and accredited for this service and when there is ongoing quality assurance (II-2A), and it should not be offered as a screen without biochemical markers in singleton pregnancies. (I-E) 8. Evaluation of the fetal nasal bone in the first trimester should not be incorporated as a screen unless it is performed by sonographers or sonologists trained and accredited for this service and there is ongoing quality assurance. (II-2E) 9. For women who undertake first trimester screening, second trimester serum alpha fetoprotein screening and/or ultrasound examination is recommended to screen for open neural tube defects. (II-1A) 10. Timely referral and access is critical for women and should be facilitated to ensure women are able to undergo the type of screening test they have chosen as first trimester screening. The first steps of integrated screening (with or without nuchal translucency), contingent, or sequential screening are performed in an early and relatively narrow time window. (II-1A) 11. Ultrasound dating should be performed if menstrual or conception dating is unreliable. For any abnormal serum screen calculated on the basis of menstrual dating, an ultrasound should be done to confirm gestational age. (II-1A) 12. The presence or absence of soft markers or anomalies in the 18- to 20-week ultrasound can be used to modify the a priori risk of aneuploidy established by age or prior screening. (II-2B) 13. Information such as gestational dating, maternal weight, ethnicity, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and use of assisted reproduction technologies should be provided to the laboratory to improve accuracy of testing. (II-2A) 14. Health care providers should be aware of the screening modalities available in their province or territory. (III-B) 15. A reliable system needs to be in place ensuring timely reporting of results. (III-C) 16. Screening programs should be implemented with resources that support audited screening and diagnostic laboratory services, ultrasound, genetic counselling services, patient and health care provider education, and high quality diagnostic testing, as well as resources for administration, annual clinical audit, and data management. In addition, there must be the flexibility and funding to adjust the program to new technology and protocols. (II-3B).

The second trimester genetic sonogram

The genetic sonogram, a fetal anatomic survey targeted at identifying features associated with aneuploidy, is carried out between 15 and 20 weeks' gestation. It has evolved as an adjunctive screening tool capable of further refining the individualized risk-calculation for trisomy that is based on maternal age or serum screening markers. The significance of a range of major structural anomalies and so-called "soft-markers" for trisomy, detected both in isolation and in combination, has been widely investigated. This review serves to describe the key components of the second trimester genetic sonogram and to illustrate how these markers are integrated into risk assessment for aneuploidy.

Second trimester prenatal ultrasound for the detection of pregnancies at increased risk of Down syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between second trimester ultrasound findings (genetic sonogram) and the risk of Down syndrome.

METHODS

Prospective population-based cohort study of women who were at increased risk of chromosome abnormality based on serum screening.

RESULTS

Overall 9244 women with singleton pregnancies were included, including 245 whose fetuses had Down syndrome. Overall, 15.3% of the women had an abnormal genetic sonogram, including 14.2% of pregnancies with normal fetuses and 53.1% of those with Down syndrome. If the genetic sonogram were normal, the risk that a woman had a fetus with Down syndrome was reduced (likelihood ratio 0.55 [95% CI 0.49, 0.62]) However, if the normal genetic sonogram were used to counsel these high-risk women that they could avoid amniocentesis, approximately half of the cases of Down syndrome (115 of 245) would have been missed. The isolated ultrasound soft markers were the most commonly observed abnormality. These were seen in a high proportion of Down syndrome fetuses (13.9%) and normal fetuses (9.3%). In the absence of a structural anomaly, the isolated ultrasound soft markers of choroid plexus cyst, echogenic bowel, renal pyelectasis, clenched hands, clinodactyly, two-vessel umbilical cord, short femur, and short humerus were not associated with Down syndrome. Nuchal fold thickening was a notable exception, as a thick nuchal fold raised the risk of Down syndrome even when it was seen without an associated structural anomaly.

LIMITATIONS

All women included in this study were at high risk of Down syndrome based on serum screening, and thus the results of this study cannot be used as a basis to modify maternal age-related risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the genetic sonogram is less than previously reported. The genetic sonogram should not be used as a sequential test following serum biochemistry, as this would substantially reduce the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome cases. In contrast to prior reports, most isolated soft markers were not associated with Down syndrome.

[Role of "subtle" ultrasonographic signs during antenatal screening for trisomy 21 during the second trimester of pregnancy: meta-analysis and CPDPN protocol of the Grenoble University Hospital]

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis about subtle ultrasonographic signs in second trimester of pregnancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

196 articles dealing with the subject--from 1985 to July 2002--were studied. Data on the 11 reported signs were collected from 92 theoretically and/or statistically valid studies. Then, the studies were selected according to several criteria: isolated characteristic, defined thresholds, calculable sensitivity and specificity. After checking for homogeneity, a likelihood ratio was calculated for some of the signs.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis of the second trimester ultrasonographic signs of Down's syndrome enabled us to estimate the likelihood ratio (LHR) of six signs. At 22 weeks'gestation (WG) these signs are: pyelectasis equal to or greater than 5 mm; nuchal fold thickness equal to or greater than 6 mm; persistence of choroid plexus cysts; shortness of the femur and humerus below the tenth percentile; hyperechogenic bowe; and nasal bone length less than 2.5 mm.

CONCLUSION

These validated ultrasonographic signs are independent of nuchal translucency thickness at 12 WG and of maternal serum biochemistry. This allows to calculate a combinate risk for nuchal translucency, maternal serum biochemistry and second trimester ultrasonographic signs when they are validated.

The mid-trimester genetic sonogram

The genetic sonogram is a composite algorithm combining multiple individual markers to increase Down syndrome risk prediction. Transformation of sonographic information into a standard mathematical format represented an early challenge that has now been surmounted. Using increasingly sophisticated mathematical techniques, individual patient risk can be estimated. High diagnostic accuracy comparable to standard mid-trimester serum algorithms has been reported. Most recently, a few studies have reported the ability to combine serum and biochemical markers to achieve diagnostic accuracy comparable to first-trimester screen. Even fewer studies have reported combinations of ultrasound and maternal urine markers. While it is clear that consistently high sensitivity and specificity for Down syndrome can be achieved, almost all the studies are based on high-risk groups. Studies in low-risk populations have suffered from lack of standardization. The relevance of genetic sonogram in a low-risk population thus remains to be proven. The most significant challenge, however, remains the development of uniform and reproducible sonographic and measurement standards. This is likely to be the most important factor in optimizing the accuracy of the mid-trimester genetic sonogram.

Prenatal diagnosis for detection of aneuploidy: the options

The value of all noninvasive prenatal tests must be viewed with the perspective of the consequences of invasive testing. Regarding second trimester noninvasive testing, biochemical screening is more accurate in establishing risk than maternal age alone. One or more major ultrasound abnormalities, nuchal thickening, or a shortened humerus should raise concern for Down syndrome regardless of the patient's a priori risk based on age or biochemical markers. Isolated minor ultrasound markers should not be used in calculating risk in low-risk patients regarding Down syndrome unless the biochemical profile already places the patient at risk or in a borderline risk zone. If the ultrasound finding is hyperechoic bowel, problems other than aneuploidy may be the cause, including cystic fibrosis, infection, or hemorrhage, and these problems must be considered if hyperechoic bowel is an isolated finding. Improved risk adjustment seems to be applicable to a priori high-risk patients with completely normal sonograms. Genetic sonograms with specific risk adjustment schemata may be used to adjust a priori risk (either maternal age or biochemical screening results) at centers in which this has proven to be accurate, but whether this is statistically sound remains to be determined. The goal of second trimester ultrasound screening is to identify at-risk fetuses better and offer invasive testing to a more select group of patients. As the value of first trimester screening becomes more evident and practical, and if the risk of chorionic villus sampling becomes an acceptable norm, the patient population that reaches the second trimester of pregnancy will be select. Therefore, we can anticipate that second trimester screening and invasive testing may be needed only in a minority of cases, and the practice standards of prenatal testing and sonography (including minor ultrasound markers) will change entirely.

Is genetic ultrasound cost-effective?

During the past 10 years, investigators have reported studies examining the potential of second-trimester genetic sonography to identify fetuses at risk for trisomy 21. The consensus among most investigators is that genetic sonography offers an alternative to universal amniocentesis in high-risk women and lowers the loss rate of normal fetuses subjected to amniocentesis because of risk factors associated with advanced maternal age or abnormal maternal-serum screening. Although there is now consensus that genetic sonography may be a useful screening tool, there has been a paucity of data regarding its cost-effectiveness. In this review, 3 studies are examined and cost-effectiveness of genetic sonography evaluated. The first study compared genetic sonography and universal amniocentesis and found that genetic sonography was cost-effective if the sensitivity is 75% or higher, resulted in a savings to the healthcare system of 9%, and decreased the loss rate of normal fetuses following amniocentesis by 87%. The second study examined the use of genetic sonography in women less than 35 years of age who underwent maternal-serum triple-marker serum screening. Women who were screen negative but who were classified as moderate risk for trisomy 21 (risk 1:191 to 1:1,000) were offered genetic sonography. Amniocentesis was offered only if the genetic sonogram was abnormal. The study demonstrated that the use of genetic sonography in this group of patients increased the detection rate of trisomy 21, was cost effective, and was a safe procedure. The third study examined the use of genetic sonography in women 35 years of age and older who declined amniocentesis following second-trimester genetic counseling. Genetic sonography was offered to this group of patients followed by amniocentesis if an abnormal ultrasound finding was present. The data were analyzed for various acceptance rates of amniocentesis by the patient when informed of the ultrasound findings. Examination of the data demonstrated this approach increased the detection rate of trisomy 21, was cost-effective, and was a safe procedure. In conclusion, genetic sonography when applied in the above clinical settings is cost-effective, results in a higher detection rate of trisomy 21, and is safe procedure.

The use of genetic sonography to reduce the need for amniocentesis in women at high-risk for Down syndrome

Much information has been published regarding the use of second-trimester genetic sonography for the prenatal detection of Down syndrome by examining multiple aneuploidy markers. Among high-risk mothers (advanced maternal age, abnormal triple screen, or both), while many undoubtedly will choose to have invasive testing as a first option, others will instead use the information derived from genetic sonography to obtain an adjusted risk for Down syndrome to guide their decision about genetic amniocentesis. Accordingly, it is imperative that these patients have accurate and detailed counseling regarding their degree of risk reduction when the genetic sonogram is normal. This article reviews the use of second trimester genetic sonography in reducing the need for amniocentesis in the high-risk patient. At our institution, in high-risk patients when the genetic ultrasound is normal, the amniocentesis rate has been only 3%. We have found that genetic sonography is a patient-driven service, and that the information obtained at the time of ultrasound is an important component of the patient's decision of whether or not to proceed with invasive testing.

The role of fetal echocardiography in genetic sonography

Genetic sonography identifies between 60% and 93% of fetuses with trisomy 21. One of the reasons for the variation in sensitivity is because of the under-detection of congenital heart defects. Although congenital heart defects are present in 56% of second trimester fetuses and 44% of newborns with trisomy 21, most studies evaluating second-trimester fetuses at risk for trisomy 21 detect less than 10% of heart malformations. This review discusses an approach that allows the fetal sonographer to incorporate fetal echocardiography, based upon the examiner's level of skill and experience, when evaluating the fetus at risk for trisomy 21. The cardiovascular examination consists of three levels. In the Level I examination only noncardiac markers are evaluated for a detection rate of 60% and false-positive rate of 5.9%. The Level II examination incorporates the four-chamber view with non-cardiac markers. If the examiner can identify atrial and/or ventricular chamber disproportion, then the sensitivity is increased to 75%, with a false-positive rate of 6.4%. The Level III examination utilizes grayscale and color Doppler ultrasound to evaluate the fetal heart. If the examiner can identify ventricular septal defects, atrioventricular septal defects, pericardial effusion, tricuspid regurgitation, and chamber disproportion, then the sensitivity of genetic sonography increases to 91% with a false-positive rate of 14%. This review includes Likelihood Ratios for each of the ultrasound markers so that the examiner can compute the risk for trisomy 21 for an individual patient.

Use of genetic sonography for adjusting the risk for fetal Down syndrome

Systematic evaluation of ultrasound findings known to be associated with trisomy 21, at an appropriate gestational age, has been referred to as a genetic sonogram. A number of high-risk centers performing genetic sonography have reported detection of ultrasound abnormalities in the majority of fetuses with fetal Down syndrome. However, nonspecific markers are more commonly observed than structural abnormalities, which are detected in less than 20% of cases in a nonselected population. Also, the actual sensitivity of a genetic sonogram will depend on various factors including the markers sought, gestational age, reasons for referral, and of course the quality of the ultrasound. Appropriate use of a genetic sonogram can help to modify the risk of fetal Down syndrome by decreasing the risk when the ultrasound is normal, or increasing the risk when specific ultrasound markers are detected. The postultrasound risk can be estimated by applying specific likelihood ratios, reflecting the strength of individual markers, with the a priori risk based on maternal age alone, or combined with biochemical markers when known. We review this approach of age-adjusted ultrasound risk assessment for fetal Down syndrome and illustrate how the risk can be estimated. Individual sonographic markers are also discussed.

An 8-center study to evaluate the utility of mid-term genetic sonograms among high-risk pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

A multicenter study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of a genetic sonogram.

METHODS

Eight centers provided data on 176 pregnancies complicated by fetal Down syndrome. One hundred thirty-four pregnancies were considered high risk because of advanced maternal age (> 35 years), and 42 were considered high risk for having "abnormal" triple-screen results (risk > 1:250). Each center provided fetal biometric data, information regarding the presence or absence of major structural abnormalities, and between 3 and 6 additional ultrasonographic markers for trisomy 21. The heterogeneity of our 8 independent "sensitivity estimates" was evaluated by Poisson regression, and a single combined estimate of the sensitivity was calculated.

RESULTS

Of the total 176 cases of trisomy 21, 125 fetuses (71.0%) had either an abnormal long bone length (femur length, humerus length, or both), a major structural abnormality, or a Down syndrome marker. The combined diagnostic sensitivity was 71.6%, with a range of 63.6% (7 of 11) to 80% (8 of 10). Five centers had sensitivity estimates falling between 64% and 76%. The sensitivity of individual markers varied between 3% (sandal gap) and 46.5% (nuchal skin fold thickness). A condensed regimen of nuchal skin fold thickness, femur length, and a standard anatomic survey would screen in 56.8% of fetuses with Down syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

This 8-center study that included many fetuses with Down syndrome validates the concept that the genetic sonogram can be used to better adjust the Down syndrome risk for high-risk patients.

Down syndrome risk estimation after normal genetic sonography

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether there are any indication-specific variations in risk reduction for fetal Down syndrome after a normal genetic sonogram.

STUDY DESIGN

A second-trimester genetic sonogram was offered to all pregnant women who were at increased risk for fetal Down syndrome (>/=1:274) because of either advanced maternal age (>/=35 years), an abnormal triple screen, or both. Outcome information included the results of genetic amniocentesis (if performed), the results of pediatric assessment, and follow-up after birth. Normal genetic sonography was defined as the absence of all ultrasound aneuploidy markers.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of fetal Down syndrome in the tested population was 1.41% (53/3,753 pregnancies); however, in the presence of normal genetic sonography, the overall prevalence of fetal Down syndrome was 0.21% (7/3,291 pregnancies). The overall risk reduction for fetal Down syndrome in the presence of normal genetic sonography was 6.64-fold (95% CI, 3.01-14.62); the overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.33). In the presence of normal genetic sonography, the risk for fetal Down syndrome was reduced by 83% in patients with advanced maternal age, 88% in patients with abnormal triple screen, 89% in patients with abnormal triple screen who were <35 years old, and 84% in patients who had both abnormal triple screen and advanced maternal age.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant variations in the risk reduction for fetal Down syndrome in the presence of normal genetic sonography. Regardless of the indication for testing, the likelihood for fetal Down syndrome was reduced by 83% to 89%. This information will be useful in counseling pregnant women who are at high risk for fetal Down syndrome and who prefer to undergo genetic sonography before deciding about genetic amniocentesis.

Genetic sonography: a cost-effective method for evaluating women 35 years and older who decline genetic amniocentesis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether offering genetic sonography to patients who decline invasive testing can increase the detection rate of trisomy 21 and is cost-effective.

METHODS

The detection rate of trisomy 21, the number of pregnancy losses after amniocentesis, and the cost of detecting a single fetus with trisomy 21 were determined in women 35 years and older managed according to the following 3 policies: (1) universal amniocentesis, (2) genetic counseling for maternal age-associated risks for trisomy 21 followed by amniocentesis in patients who elected it, and (3) genetic counseling followed by genetic sonography in patients who originally declined genetic amniocentesis.

RESULT

From a population of 40,143 women 35 years and older, the expected number of trisomy 21 fetuses was 349. After genetic counseling, 32% of patients declined invasive testing, resulting in detection of 70% of fetuses with trisomy 21. For universal amniocentesis, the cost to detect 1 fetus with trisomy 21 was $138,036. For the 32% who declined invasive testing after genetic counseling and underwent genetic sonography, the cost to detect a single fetus with trisomy 21 was a function of sensitivity and the screen-positive rate. For screen-positive rates between 5% and 25%, genetic sonography resulted in a cost savings between 14.3% and 18.8% when compared with universal invasive testing and resulted in a considerable increase in detection of fetuses with trisomy 21 (77% to 97%).

CONCLUSIONS

A policy of offering genetic sonography followed by amniocentesis to patients 35 years and older who originally decline invasive testing for the diagnosis of trisomy 21 is cost-effective and results in a higher overall detection rate for trisomy 21 without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.

Sonographic markers of fetal aneuploidy

A variety of ultrasound findings can be identified in fetuses with fetal aneuploidy. Typical findings vary with both the chromosome abnormality and gestational age at time of the ultrasound examination. Increased NT is the primary marker during the first trimester, whereas a variety of markers may be seen during the second trimester. The presence of ultrasound markers increases the risk for fetal aneuploidy, whereas a normal ultrasound reduces the risk. Optimal risk assessment includes consideration of other risk factors including maternal age, family history, and biochemical markers. It is expected that combined risks, incorporating ultrasound findings and biochemistry, will be available in the near future. How first-trimester screening is integrated with second-trimester screening remains to be determined.