Maternal serum screening for chromosome defects: human chorionic gonadotropin versus its free-beta subunit

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.

Predictive value of hormone measurements in maternal and fetal complications of pregnancy

Intrauterine tissues (placenta, amnion, chorion, decidua) express hormones and cytokines that play a decisive role in maternal-fetal physiological interactions. The excessive or deficient release of some placental hormones in association with gestational diseases may reflect an abnormal differentiation of the placenta, an impaired fetal metabolism, or an adaptive response of the feto-placental unit to adverse conditions. This review is focused on the applicability of hormone measurements in the risk assessment, early diagnosis, and management of pregnancies complicated by Down's syndrome, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and diabetes mellitus. Combined hormonal tests or the combination of hormones and ultrasound may achieve reasonable sensitivity, but research continues to simplify the screening programs without sacrificing their accuracy. Only in a few instances is there sufficient evidence to firmly recommend the routine use of hormone tests to predict maternal and fetal complications, but the judicious use of selected tests may enhance the sensitivity of the risk assessment based solely on clinical and ultrasound examination.

Down's syndrome screening: a controversial test, with more controversy to come!

By 1998, most health authorities offered antenatal screening for Down's syndrome, usually by biochemical methods. To date, the development of this form of screening has not been coordinated by a national body and, consequently, there are wide variations in practice between localities. Fortunately, many of these variations have not led to any noticeable inequality of health provision, but the wide variation in risk cut offs used by different centres does. Other variations merely lead to potentially unnecessary expenditure; whereas it is believed that adding extra tests to the screening procedure is beneficial (such as double test to triple test), statistical evaluation of the confidence intervals for the detection rates quoted indicates that there is no evidence that the extra test provides an increase in detection. The cervical screening programme has progressively improved, partly through the auspices of a national framework. A similar national approach would benefit Down's screening and is only now being considered: the national screening committee (NSC) is currently drafting recommendations. To ensure optimum screening performance, the NSC should specify the risk thresholds applied, the screening protocols to be used--that is, an opt-in programme with a minimum (possibly even a maximum) of two biochemical analytes or a nuchal fold evaluation--and perhaps should even recommend national population parameters to be used for risk calculation. It might even be advisable for statistical work to be carried out to determine whether local derivation of medians is truly necessary. Furthermore, defined options for older women could be specified--for example, should all older patients have the option to proceed directly to amniocentesis if they wish or should National Health Service amniocentesis only be available for those with a "high risk" screening result. The difficulties that will face the NSC in deciding which screening policy to adopt are also considered; specifically, the lack of evidence to suggest that triple testing is superior to double testing, and the lack of evidence to prove the superiority of one analyte over another. This inadequacy of evidence is not from want of trying, but is caused by the problems of collecting enough data to provide statistical significance. Finally, there is one important difference between cervical and Down's syndrome screening that has a major impact on the advice given by any "expert"; namely, patents. Many aspects of Down's screening are subject to patents and, therefore, there is more potential for apparently uncontroversial decisions to rebound with future retrospective patent infringement claims. Thus, it would be sensible to insist that any member of a national body deciding upon Down's screening policy must fully disclose all potential conflicts of interest, both personal and family, before they are allowed to sit on the committee. Furthermore, if a national policy is decided upon, worldwide patent searches should be carried out to determine whether there are any possible unforeseen legal consequences of any recommendation.

Screening for Down's syndrome

Down's syndrome (DS) is the commonest cause of severe mental retardation in children. It is the result of trisomy of chromosome 21 which is usually a random event though it is commoner in older mothers. DS can be diagnosed by chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis followed by karyotyping. Because of the risks associated with these invasive procedures, they can only be offered to a high-risk group. At one time the sole basis for identifying this increased risk was maternal age, but within the past ten years a series of biochemical and ultrasound abnormalities have been shown in DS pregnancies. The biochemical abnormalities include changes in the levels of most fetal and placental products in the maternal circulation. The best-known of these changes are the reduced levels of alphafetoprotein (AFP) and oestriol (E3) and increased levels of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The mechanism underlying these biochemical phenomena is unknown. Screening programmes involving the measurement of hCG and AFP, with or without additional parameters such as E3, at 15-18 weeks of pregnancy can typically identify 60% or more of cases of DS with a screen-positive rate of 5%. The combined risk derived from the various biochemical parameters, together with maternal age, is calculated by one of a number of computer programmes which have been developed for this purpose. There has been considerable discussion as to the exact biochemical tests which should be used for DS screening. This had led to controversy as to whether measurement of E3 has a place, and whether or not measurement of the free beta-subunit of hCG should replace measurement of the intact molecule. A notable recent development is the suggestion that measurement of the urinary beta-core of the hCG could be a highly discriminatory marker. A number of factors can affect the results of biochemical screening for DS. These include maternal weight, gestational age, ethnic origin, smoking, and diabetes. In addition, abnormal levels of the biochemical products may be found in other chromosome abnormalities.