Second and first trimester estimation of risk for Down syndrome: implementation and performance in the SAFER study

被引:7
|
作者
MacRae, Andrew R. [1 ]
Chodirker, Bernie N. [1 ]
Davies, Gregory A. [2 ]
Palomaki, Glenn E. [3 ]
Knight, George J. [3 ]
Minett, Jane
Kavsak, Peter A. [4 ]
Toi, Ants [5 ]
Chitayat, David [6 ]
Van Caeseele, Paul G. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manitoba, Biochem & Med Genet, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[2] Queens Univ, Obstet & Gynecol, Kingston, ON, Canada
[3] Brown Univ, Women & Infants Hosp, Lab Med, Providence, RI USA
[4] McMaster Univ, Pathol & Mol Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Toronto, Mt Sinai Hosp, Diagnost Imaging, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
[6] Univ Toronto, Mt Sinai Hosp, Prenatal Diag & Med Genet Program, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
[7] Univ Manitoba, Med Microbiol, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
关键词
Down syndrome; prenatal screening; serum markers; nuchal translucency; risk algorithms; SERUM ALPHA-FETOPROTEIN; MATERNAL SERUM; ULTRASOUND; 1ST-TRIMESTER; AGE; PREGNANCIES; TRISOMY-21; INHIBIN; SURUSS; TESTS;
D O I
10.1002/pd.2502
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Objectives Document patient choices and screening performance (false positive and detection rates) when three improved Down syndrome screening protocols were introduced coincidentally. Method Second-trimester 'triple marker' screening was expanded by adding second-trimester dimeric inhibin-A (four-marker), with or without first-trimester pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (five-marker). Nuchal translucency (NT) measurements were included when available from accredited sonographers (six-marker). For assigning risk, two sets of marker distribution parameters were evaluated. Results Over 3.5 years, 8571 women enrolled (median age 30.6 years). Uptake of the four-, five- and six-marker protocols was 18%, 46% and 36%, respectively. Of those selecting an integrated test (five or six markers), 9.7% did not provide the second trimester serum sample. False positive rates decreased with added markers (5.2%, 5.1% and 2.5%, respectively) and varied between the two parameter sets, while detection remained high. Overall, 21 of 23 cases were detected (91%, 95% CI 73-98%) at a 4.2% false positive rate (95% CI 3.3-5.1%). Conclusions Integrated screening protocols were chosen 4.6 times more often than four-marker screening (82% vs. 18% uptake). Overall detection was higher and false positives lower, consistent with recent guidelines. Important performance factors include gestational dating method, risk cut-off, and the parameter set used to assign risk. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:459 / 466
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Appropriate biochemical parameters in first-trimester screening for Down syndrome
    Cuckle, HS
    van Lith, JMM
    PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 1999, 19 (06) : 505 - 512
  • [22] First trimester screening for Down syndrome and assisted reproduction: no basis for concern
    Wojdemann, KR
    Larsen, SO
    Shalmi, A
    Sundberg, K
    Christiansen, M
    Tabor, A
    PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2001, 21 (07) : 563 - 565
  • [23] Role of Second-Trimester Genetic Sonography After Down Syndrome Screening
    Aagaard-Tillery, Kjersti M.
    Malone, Fergal D.
    Nyberg, David A.
    Porter, T. Flint
    Cuckle, Howard S.
    Fuchs, Karin
    Sullivan, Lisa
    Comstock, Christine H.
    Saade, George R.
    Eddleman, Keith
    Gross, Susan
    Dugoff, Lorraine
    Craigo, Sabrina D.
    Timor-Tritsch, Ilan E.
    Carr, Stephen R.
    Wolfe, Honor M.
    Bianchi, Diana W.
    D'Alton, Mary E.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 114 (06) : 1189 - 1196
  • [24] Comparison of combined, biochemical and nuchal translucency screening for Down syndrome in first trimester in Northern Finland
    Peuhkurinen, Sini
    Laitinen, Paivi
    Honkasalo, Timppa
    Ryynanen, Markku
    Marttala, Jaana
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2013, 92 (07) : 769 - 774
  • [25] Combining first and second trimester markers for Down syndrome screening: Think twice
    Cocciolone, Robert
    Brameld, Kate
    O'Leary, Peter
    Haan, Eric
    Muller, Peter
    Shand, Karen
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2008, 48 (05) : 492 - 500
  • [26] Screening for Down Syndrome using first-trimester combined screening followed by second trimester ultrasound examination in an unselected population
    Rozenberg, P.
    Bussieres, L.
    Chevret, S.
    Bemard, J.-P.
    Malagrida, L.
    Cuckle, H.
    Chabry, C.
    Durand-Zaleski, I.
    Bidat, L.
    Lacroix, I.
    Moulis, M.
    Roger, M.
    Jacquernotic, M. -C.
    Bault, J. -P.
    Boukobza, P.
    Boccaram, P.
    Vialat, F.
    Giudicelli, Y.
    Ville, Y.
    GYNECOLOGIE OBSTETRIQUE & FERTILITE, 2007, 35 (04): : 303 - 311
  • [27] Comparison of first trimester, second trimester and integrated Down's syndrome screening results in unaffected pregnancies
    Canini, S
    Prefumo, F
    Famularo, L
    Venturini, PL
    Palazzese, V
    Biasio, PD
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2002, 40 (06) : 600 - 603
  • [28] Down syndrome screening in the first and/or second trimester: Model predicted performance using meta-analysis parameters
    Cuckle, H
    Benn, P
    Wright, D
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2005, 29 (04) : 252 - 257
  • [29] Screening for Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy
    O'Leary, Peter
    Maxwell, Susannah
    Sinosich, Michael
    Devoss, Kerry
    Fletcher, Janice
    Ranieri, Enzo
    Metz, Michael P.
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2016, 56 (01) : 19 - 21
  • [30] First-Trimester Screening for Down Syndrome with Serum Sampling at Different Gestational Ages: The Effect on Screening Performance
    Engels, Melanie A. J.
    Twisk, Jos W. R.
    Blankenstein, Marinus A.
    van Vugt, John M. G.
    FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY, 2014, 36 (04) : 293 - 298