Triple-marker test as screening for Down syndrome: a meta-analysis

CRISPR/Cas-Based Prenatal Screening for Aneuploidy: Challenges and Opportunities for Early Diagnosis

Aneuploidy is increasingly recognized globally as a common cause of miscarriage among expectant mothers. The existing prenatal screening techniques for detecting aneuploidy have several limitations. The ability to diagnose aneuploidy early in a non-invasive manner is not feasible with the current screening methods, as they may produce false positive or false negative results. Recently, the widely used gene editing tool CRISPR/Cas has shown great promise in diagnostics. This review summarizes the prenatal screening tests used in the first trimester to assess aneuploidy conditions. Additionally, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of molecular diagnostic tests, including the benefits and challenges of CRISPR/Cas-based trisomy detection. Thus, the proposed prenatal screening using CRISPR/Cas could provide significant benefits to expectant mothers by potentially enabling the early diagnosis of trisomy, helping to prevent miscarriage and birth defects. Furthermore, it opens new avenues for research, allowing clinicians and researchers to develop, optimize, and implement CRISPR/Cas-based prenatal screening assays in the future.

Prenatal Diagnosis: Screening and Diagnostic Tools

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant women be offered aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing. A myriad of screening and testing options are available to patients based on their risk profile and gestational age. Screening options include traditional serum analyte screening, such as first-trimester screening or quadruple screening, and more recently, cell-free DNA. Diagnostic testing choices include chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. The number of screening and diagnostic modalities complicates prenatal counseling for physicians and can be difficult for patients to grasp. Appropriate pretest and posttest counseling is important to ensure adequate understanding of results and ensure testing strategy is concordant with patient goals.

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.

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.

Second trimester serum 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 retardation. 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.  

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the accuracy of second trimester serum markers for the detection of Down's syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to May 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 18 May 2007), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 18 May 2007), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 18 May 2007), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDION (May 2007), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (May 2007), The National Research Register (May 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (May 2007). We studied reference lists and published review articles.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating tests of maternal serum in women at 14-24 weeks of 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

Fifty-nine studies involving 341,261 pregnancies (including 1,994 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Seventeen studies made direct comparisons between tests. Fifty-four test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of 12 different tests and maternal age; alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), total human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), free beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (βhCG), free alpha human chorionic gonadotrophin (αhCG), Inhibin A, SP2, CA125, troponin, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), placental growth factor (PGF) and proform of eosinophil major basic protein (ProMBP).Meta-analysis of 12 best performing or frequently evaluated test combinations showed double and triple tests (involving AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG) significantly outperform individual markers, detecting six to seven out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. Tests additionally involving inhibin performed best (eight out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies) but were not shown to be significantly better than standard triple tests in direct comparisons. Significantly lower sensitivity occurred in women over the age of 35 years. 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 the accuracy of the sensitivity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving two or more markers in combination with maternal age are significantly more sensitive than those involving one marker. The value of combining four or more tests or including inhibin have not been proven to show statistically significant improvement. Further study is required to investigate reduced test performance in women aged over 35 and the impact of differential pregnancy loss on study findings.

A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To review existing quality assessment tools for diagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessed and incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality of studies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting or interpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; 1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies to examine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.

RESULTS

Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provided details of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had been systematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%) had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. The majority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.

CONCLUSION

Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies do not start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematically evaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differences in quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible source of heterogeneity.

Prenatal trisomy 21 screening using the Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive alpha-fetoprotein ratio

For the purpose of improving the clinical efficacy of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-L3% in prenatal screening for trisomy 21, we calculated the multiple of the median (MoM) of AFP-L3% (L3 MoM) and the ratio of L3 MoM to AFP MoM (L3 MoM/AFP MoM) in maternal serum. Maternal serum samples from 1822 women (maternal age 37.3 +/- 3.8 years, and weeks of gestation 16.0 +/- 1.0; mean +/- SD) with unaffected pregnancies and 28 women (37.6 +/- 4.6 years, 16.6 +/- 3.1) pregnant with of trisomy 21 fetuses were obtained. The AFP concentration and AFP-L3% in maternal serum were measured using a liquid-phase binding assay. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of AFP MoM, AFP-L3%, L3 MoM, and L3 MoM/AFP MoM were 0.750, 0.868, 0.949 and 0.946, respectively. The AUCs of L3 MoM and L3 MoM/AFP MoM were significantly higher than AFP-L3% (P < 0.05) and AFP MoM (P < 0.0005). However, no statistical difference was observed between the AUCs of L3 MoM and L3 MoM/AFP MoM. In conclusion, the L3 MoM should be an effective replacement for AFP-L3% in prenatal trisomy 21 screening.

Maternal Serum Screening: Practice Patterns of Physicians in Newfoundland

OBJECTIVE

To compare the utilization of the second trimester maternal serum screen (MSS) of a-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotrophin, and unconjugated estriol, in Newfoundland, by practice location, training, and gender.

METHODS

Four hundred eighteen anonymous self-reported questionnaires were mailed out to all practising family physicians, general practitioners, and obstetricians in Newfoundland, who were identified through the provincial medical board. The survey included questions on demographic characteristics, provision of antenatal care, gestational age at which MSS is ordered, reasons for offering or not offering MSS, and the use of routine antenatal ultrasound. Categorical data were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher exact tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Overall, 63% of physicians responded to the survey. Forty percent of respondents had an urban practice. Female physicians, regardless of specialty, were more likely to offer MSS to their patients (89% vs. 78%; P = 0.04), whereas family physicians and obstetricians were more likely to offer screening than general practitioners (85% vs. 83% vs. 25%; P = 0.02). Among physicians offering MSS, 54% offered it only to women 35 years and older. Practice location did not affect whether a woman was offered MSS (P = 0.41). Twenty-five percent of family physicians offering MSS did not offer it at the appropriate gestational age of 15 to 20 weeks. Ninety-four percent of pregnant women were routinely offered an ultrasound during pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of MSS in Newfoundland is affected by physician training and gender, but not by practice location. Further education of physicians is required to ensure appropriate use and timing of this screening test.

The comprehensive midtrimester test: high-sensitivity Down syndrome test

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a highly sensitive algorithm for midtrimester Down syndrome detection.

STUDY DESIGN

Urine (hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin, beta-core fragment of human chorionic gonadotropin), serum (alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin and unconjugated estriol [uE(3)]), and ultrasound biometry (nuchal thickness, humerus length, the presence of gross ultrasonographic anomalies), and maternal age were measured at genetic amniocentesis. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify the most significant markers. A multivariate Gaussian algorithm plus age was used to derive patient-specific Down syndrome risk. Sensitivity and false-positive rates at different risk thresholds and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve were determined. A probability value of <.05 was significant.

RESULTS

There were 568 study cases with 17 Down syndrome cases (3.0%). The mean (+/-SD) maternal and gestational ages for the study group were 36.9 (+/-3.5) years and 16.2 (+/-1.4) weeks, respectively. The significant markers were nuchal thickness (P =.0001), hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin(P <.001), and beta-core fragment (P <.002). Neither maternal age nor gross sonographic anomaly contributed significantly to Down syndrome detection. The comprehensive midtrimester test was extremely efficient for Down syndrome detection in advanced maternal age only cases with a sensitivity of 92.3% at a 0.8% false-positive rate. In women <35 years old, all the Down syndrome cases were detected at 2.2% false positive rate. For the overall population, the sensitivity was 93.7% at 5% false-positive rate.

CONCLUSION

In a preliminary study, the comprehensive midtrimester test appeared highly sensitive in different age groups. Gross anomaly detection was not required for high performance, which makes the comprehensive midtrimester test potentially suitable for low-risk screening and as an alternative to amniocentesis in women who wish to avoid the procedure. This was a small study; thus, the clinical value of this test can only be established in large trials.

A negative second trimester triple test and absence of specific ultrasonographic markers may decrease the need for genetic amniocentesis in advanced maternal age by 60%

OBJECTIVE

A study was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of combining a second trimester triple test and targeted ultrasound in order to detect Down syndrome in women undergoing amniocentesis over 35 years of age.

METHODS

Women over 35 years of age underwent a triple test and an ultrasound examination for chromosomal markers immediately prior to genetic amniocentesis.

RESULTS

One thousand and six women were examined. Four hundred and thirty seven were triple test-positive and in 195 cases ultrasonographic abnormalities were observed. Thirteen had Down syndrome and eight had other chromosomal abnormalities. All women with Down syndrome babies were triple test-positive and seven also had ultrasonographic markers. Three of eight women who had babies with chromosomal aberrations other then Down syndrome were also triple test-positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the triple test as a screening tool in our population would reduce the number of amniocenteses by 60%, while no cases of Down syndrome would be missed. Ultrasonographic markers have added little to this population. Three non-Down syndrome chromosomal abnormalities and two Down syndrome mosaic cases would be missed by this approach.

Comparison of triple serum screening and pregnancy outcome in oocyte donation versus IVF pregnancies

The current study compared triple serum screening results and outcomes in 37 oocyte donation (OD) and 46 self oocyte IVF-conceived singletons of similarly aged women (28.8 +/- 4.4 years and 30.7 +/- 4.5 years respectively). Both groups were followed from their embryo transfer and throughout pregnancy. Although the daily pattern of first-trimester serum beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) was similar in both groups, higher mid-gestation HCG serum concentrations were found, i.e. 1.38 and 1.32 multiples of the median (median MoM) for IVF and OD respectively, in comparison with 0.99 median MoM from the same reference laboratory. Only the OD group had significantly increased alpha fetoprotein (AFP) concentrations (1.45 median MoM) (P = 0.002) compared with the reference laboratory. A total of 11% of the IVF and 13% of the OD women were found to be screen positive. In neither group were chromosomal abnormalities detected and no fetal or neonatal deaths were recorded. Seven (15%) of the OD and seven (19%) of the IVF women had an adverse obstetric outcome. Of those cases, six IVF and four OD women had serum HCG > or = 1.2 MoM and five OD women had AFP >1.2 MoM. Therefore, in those pregnancies the high serum HCG concentrations may alert for adverse obstetric outcome rather than indicating a high risk for Down's syndrome fetuses.

Comparison of urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration with the serum triple screen for Down syndrome detection in high-risk pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

Both modest screening performance and declining patient and physician acceptance have stimulated interest in alternative markers to the triple screen for the detection of Down syndrome. Our purpose was to compare the concentration of a single urinary analyte, hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin, with the serum triple screen (alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and unconjugated estriol concentrations combined with age) for second-trimester Down syndrome detection.

STUDY DESIGN

Urine and blood were obtained from pregnant women in the second trimester undergoing genetic amniocentesis. Urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration and serum triple-screen values were measured. Individuals undergoing amniocentesis because of abnormal triple-screen results were excluded. Individual Down syndrome risks on the basis of urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration plus maternal age and on the basis of the triple-screen results were calculated. For each algorithm the sensitivity and false-positive rate for Down syndrome detection at different risk thresholds were determined. From these values receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve was determined for each algorithm. Finally, the performance of a new combination in which urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration replaced serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration in the triple screen was ascertained.

RESULTS

We studied 24 pregnancies complicated by Down syndrome and 500 unaffected pregnancies between 14 and 22 weeks' gestation in a mostly white (93.5%) population undergoing amniocentesis primarily because of advanced maternal age. The sensitivity and false-positive rate for urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration were 75. 0% and 5.6%, respectively, whereas those for the triple screen were 75.0% and 33.2%, respectively. Urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration was superior to the triple screen (area under the curve, 0.9337 vs 0.7887; P =.02). The substitution of urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration for serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration in the triple screen resulted in a 91.7% sensitivity at a 10.0% false-positive rate, versus a 54.2% sensitivity for the traditional triple screen at the same false-positive rate.

CONCLUSION

The performance of urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration was statistically superior to that of the serum triple screen in a high-risk population. The use of urinary hyperglycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin concentration as an alternative test or substitution of this measurement for serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration in the triple screen would improve diagnostic accuracy and address many current concerns related to the triple screen.

Elevated maternal urine level of beta-core fragment of human chorionic gonadotropin versus serum triple test in the second-trimester detection of down syndrome

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare the Down syndrome screening efficiency of elevated maternal urine level of the beta-core fragment of human chorionic gonadotropin with that of the traditional serum triple test.

STUDY DESIGN

Urinary beta-core fragment and serum analyte levels were measured prospectively in women with singleton pregnancies who were undergoing second-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Urinary analyte levels were measured within a week of specimen collection. In some cases only alpha-fetoprotein was measured initially and human chorionic gonadotropin and unconjugated estriol levels were subsequently determined from the stored serum specimens. The Down syndrome screening efficiency of urinary concentration of beta-core fragment plus maternal age was compared with that of the traditional triple test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for each algorithm and the areas under the curves were compared to determine which algorithm was superior.

RESULTS

There were a total of 926 study patients, of whom 21 (2.3%) carried fetuses with Down syndrome. The mean (+/-SD) gestations at amniocentesis were 16.6 +/- 1.5 weeks for the fetuses without Down syndrome and 17.7 +/- 2.3 for the fetuses with Down syndrome. A total of 539 women (4 of whom carried fetuses with Down syndrome) had serum alpha-fetoprotein alone measured initially. Urinary concentration of beta-core fragment had a 61.9% detection rate with a 4.9% false-positive rate for Down syndrome, whereas the values for the triple screen were 57. 1% and 11.2%, respectively. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.8744 for elevated urinary beta-core fragment level and 0.7504 for the triple screen (P =.1116). When the false-positive rate was fixed at an ideal threshold value (</=5%) the urine test was superior (area under the curve, 0.0212 vs 0.0133, P <.05). Similarly, when we considered only cases in which the complete triple screen was performed prospectively (17 fetuses with Down syndrome and 431 fetuses without Down syndrome), the urine test was significantly better (area under the curve, 0.873 vs 0.624, P =.012).

CONCLUSION

In this first reported direct comparison we consistently observed higher sensitivity values for screening with urinary levels of beta-core fragment than for serum triple screen, suggesting an equivalent or superior Down syndrome screening performance for the urinary analyte. It is important that freezing and prolonged urine storage before testing be avoided. The reduced cost (single- versus triple-analyte testing) and excellent screening performance support large-scale testing and evaluation of maternal urinary beta-core fragment measurement as an alternative to the traditional serum triple test.

Comparison of nuchal translucency measurement and second-trimester triple serum screening in twin versus singleton pregnancies

Maternal serum screening for Down syndrome (DS) in twin pregnancies poses difficulties due to a lack of precise biochemical information about each co-twin. The current study attempts, for the first time, to compare two screening methods: nuchal translucency (NT) measurement and serum screening for DS, in twin pregnancies. 60 women with twin pregnancies (study group) underwent both first-trimester NT scanning and mid-trimester triple-marker serum screening, and were followed throughout their gestation. Nuchal translucency measurements were compared with a matched control of 120 singleton pregnancies with a similar (+/-2 years) maternal age and fetal crown-rump length (CRL) (+/-3 mm). In both analyses, a risk of 1:380, or higher, of having a DS newborn was considered screen positive. Both mean maternal age (31+/-3 years) and CRL (62+/-11 mm) were similar in the study and control groups. The median NT measurement expressed as multiples of the median (MOM) for CRL was similar in the study and control groups (0.85 and 0.88, respectively). Based on NT measurements, 5 per cent of the pregnancies in the study group and 2.5 per cent in the control group were defined as screen positive (p =N. S). Mid-gestation serum screening was associated with 15 per cent and 6 per cent screen-positive rate in study and control groups, respectively (p<0. 05). There was a ratio of 1:3 screen-positive rate between first and second-trimester screening tests within the study group. This high false-positive rate results led to 18.3 per cent amniocentesis rate in the study group compared with 7.5 per cent of the control group (p<0.03). Only one co-twin which was picked up by the NT screen was further diagnosed as trisomy 21, and one co-twin with cardiac and neural tube defect was missed by the two screening tests and was later picked up in an anomaly scan. Although the current series is too small to provoke any changes in screening practice, when twin pregnancies are diagnosed, it seems very reasonable to offer them NT measurement. A larger group may be needed to clarify which approach is the most beneficial screening policy for this highly selected group of pregnant women.