Search

Objective: To determine whether the improved precision of nuchal translucency (NT) measurement used in antenatal screening for Down's syndrome observed over time as evidenced by a decrease in the multiple of the median (MoM) standard deviation requires a modification to the NT MoM truncation limits to maintain accurate risk estimation. Methods: Probability plots were derived from the measurements of NT MoM values used in a 2018 audit of 22,362 unaffected pregnancies. The plots were used to determine whether the NT MoM upper truncation limit should be lowered. Validation plots were used to assess the screening accuracy of Down's syndrome risk estimates calculated from observed NT MoM values in the 22,362 unaffected pregnancies and 69 Down's syndrome pregnancies for original and revised NT MoM truncation limits. Results: Probability plots indicated that with improved precision of NT measurements, there was deviation from a Gaussian distribution at less high MoM values than with less precise measurements. Validation plots showed that using the current NT MoM upper truncation limit of 2.5 MoM with improved precision NT measurements overestimates the Down's syndrome risk (median risk in highest risk category expressed as an odds was 53.3:1 and observed prevalence was 1:1.1). The large discrepancy was corrected by changing the NTupper truncation limit to 2.0 MoM (median risk in highest risk category expressed as an odds was 1:1.78 and observed prevalence 1:2.7). Conclusion: The NT MoM upper truncation limit should be reduced from 2.5 to 2.0 MoM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To validate empirically the accuracy of antenatal Down's syndrome screening using the Integrated test, to compare this with other screening tests (including the Integrated test with the addition of cross trimester [CT] marker ratios) and to suggest how such validation analyses should be presented and interpreted. Methods: Using data from 7809 unaffected and 27 Down's syndrome pregnancies that had had an Integrated test, risk estimates for various screening tests (maternal age, Double, Triple, Quadruple, Combined, Integrated and serum Integrated tests) that use Integrated test markers were categorized according to quintile categories of risk estimates of the 27 affected pregnancies. For each screening test, the median risk estimate for each category was plotted against the observed prevalence within each category. Such validation plots were also produced for the Integrated test with CT marker ratios by measuring the level of the serum markers in the trimester of pregnancy not already measured in stored samples of all affected and a one-in-five sample of unaffected pregnancies. The robustness of the method was assessed by repeating the analysis for the Integrated test after re-classifying affected pregnancies with low risk estimates as unaffected, simulating the underascertainment of cases. Results: The validation plots (i) confirmed the accuracy of risk estimation for the different tests (by how close the points lay to the line of identity between predicted risk and observed prevalence), (ii) demonstrated the differences in screening performance of the different tests (by the range of risk spanned by the points and, in particular, the separation between the points representing the lowest risk and the next point), and (iii) are robust to underascertainment of affected pregnancies (by having little influence on the closeness of the points to the line of identity). Conclusion: The validation plot is a useful, simple and robust way to assess the validity of new screening methods, to assess the accuracy of risk estimation and to audit the performance of screening programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which explores the comparison of different screening methods to keep the specific test performance, both the detection rate and false-positive rate, distinct from the uptake of further testing.