Search

In the last decades, the screening for Down syndrome brought the 11- to 14-week scan to the forefront of modern pregnancy care. Initially just a nuchal scan as part of the combined test, it upgraded to a detailed anatomy scan that should be done always where the ultrasound machine and the expertise allow, as instructed by current guidelines. Though a lot of the anatomy can be assessed at this age, it is still mainly used only for the measurements necessary for the combined tests or for noninvasive prenatal testing, hence a lot of the structural anomalies are missed. Our paper focuses on cases in which the anatomy scan was not performed, and structural and chromosomal anomalies were missed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report on the routine clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis of maternal blood for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test in twin pregnancy.Methods: Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 was carried out in 959 twin pregnancies by assessment of a combination of maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, and serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A at 11-13 weeks' gestation in two UK NHS hospitals. Women in the high-risk group (risk ≥ 1 in 100) were offered the option of invasive testing, cfDNA testing or no further testing, and those in the intermediate-risk group (risk 1 in 101 to 1 in 2500 in the first phase of the study and 1 in 101 to 1 in 500 in the second phase) were offered cfDNA or no further testing. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or examination of the neonates.Results: In 42 (4.4%) of the 959 pregnancies, there was termination, miscarriage or stillbirth with no known karyotype or there was loss to follow-up. The 917 pregnancies with known trisomic status of both twins included six that were discordant for trisomy 21, four that were discordant for trisomy 18 and 907 with no trisomy 21, 18 or 13. Following combined screening, 47 (5.1%), 203 (22.1%) and 667 (72.7%) of the pregnancies were classified as high risk, intermediate risk and low risk, respectively. The high-risk group included five (83.3%) cases of trisomy 21 and three (75.0%) of trisomy 18. The cfDNA test was carried out in 224 pregnancies and results were provided in 214 (95.5%); this group included six pregnancies with trisomy 21, three with trisomy 18 and 206 with no trisomy 21, 18 or 13. The cfDNA test classified correctly as screen positive all six cases of trisomy 21 and two of the three with trisomy 18, and as screen negative for each of the trisomies all 206 unaffected pregnancies. Contingent screening led to prenatal detection of all cases of trisomy 21 and three of four with trisomy 18.Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of introducing cfDNA testing, contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test for major trisomies, in a routine population of twin pregnancies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the costs and outcomes of different screening strategies for Down Syndrome (DS) in singleton pregnancies.Study Design: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and the outcomes of different prenatal screening strategies. Five strategies were compared for women under 35-year of age: 1A) triple test (TT), 2A); combined test (CT), 3A) Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Test by using cell free fetal DNA (NIPT), 4A) and 5A) NIPT as a second-step screening for high-risk patients detected by either TT, or CT respectively. For women ≥35-year of age, 1B) implementing invasive test (amniocentesis -AC) and 2B) NIPT for all women were compared. Data was analyzed to obtain the outcomes, total costs, the cost per women and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening strategies.Results: Among the current strategies for women under 35 years old, CT is clearly dominated to TT, as it is more effective and less costly. Although, the current routine practice (2A) is the least-costly strategy, implementing NIPT as a second step screening to high-risk women identified by CT (5A) would be more effective than 2A; leading to a 10.2% increase in the number of detected DS cases and a 96.3% reduction in procedural related losses (PRL). However, its cost to the Social Security Institution that is a public entity would be 17 times higher and increase screening costs by 1.5 times. Strategy 5A would result in an incremental cost effectiveness of 6,873,082 (PPP) US$ when compared to the current one (2A). Strategy 1B-for offering AC to all women ≥35-year of age is dominated over NIPT (2B), as it would detect more DS cases and would be less costly. On the other hand, there would be 206 PRL associated with AC, but NIPT provides clear clinical benefits as there would be no PRL with NIPT.Conclusions: NIPT leads to very high costs despite its high effectiveness in terms of detecting DS cases and avoiding PRL. The cost of NIPT should be decreased, otherwise, only individuals who can afford to pay from out-of-pocket could benefit. We believe that reliable cost-effective prenatal screening policies are essential in countries with low and smiddle income and high birth rates as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to give an overview of current status of worldwide discussion of effectivness of Down's syndrome screeening programs. This article explaines structure of basic screening strategies and review of their published evidence. In this article screening tests of the first trimester (combined test with or without new sonographic markers), the second trimester (quadruple, triple and double test) and tests which combine markes of the first trimester with markers of the second trimester (integrated test, sequential test and contingent tests) are discussed. Arguments supporting current trend to perform screening in the first trimester with combination ultrasound and biochemical markers of the first trimester are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe any trends in the uptake of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome since the addition of the earlier first trimester combined test. Study Design: All antenatal screening tests for Down's syndrome were carried out and their results were recorded by the Clinical Biochemistry Department at the Hull Royal Infirmary (HRI) and reviewed against the antenatal booking data held at the Women and Children's Hospital at HRI. The uptake of antenatal Down's syndrome screening for 5 different age groups of women across a four-year-period from 2007 to 2010 was analysed. Results: There was a significant increase in uptake of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome from 43.9% to 56.5% after the introduction of the combined test in 2010. This increase was apparent in all age groups. There was no change in the proportion of women opting for an invasive test following a positive screening test. Conclusion: Addition of the earlier first trimester combined test has increased uptake of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome in women of all ages. This is most likely due to the advantages this test gives women such as earlier decision making, earlier further invasive diagnostic testing and earlier termination, if necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]