Search

Prenatal screening has come a long way from the discovery of fetal ultrasound markers for Down syndrome followed by improved ultrasound skills where genetic syndromes and major congenital malformations can be diagnosed right in the first trimester itself. The outcome is a key factor for the couple to make informed decision on the future of the high risk pregnancy. Prenatal screening, diagnosis, management and subsequent prevention is now an established practice in fetal medicine. The first trimester screening (at 11-13+6 weeks) includes evaluating markers for common aneuploidies (trisomies) such as Down syndrome along with a detailed fetal anatomy review. This is followed by a genetic sonogram or anomaly scan at around 20 weeks. Any signs of "high risk" for trisomies or malformations prompt invasive testing for precision diagnosis, either a chorion villous sampling (CVS) or an amniocentesis (AC). The fetal sample is used for various genetic tests, such as chromosome microarray analysis (CMA), targeted clinical exome sequencing (CES), or whole exome sequencing (WES) depending upon the abnormality noted or the suspected genetic condition. Non Invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) is now available as a screening tool for Down syndrome (99%accuracy for Down syndrome) if the couple choose to defer invasive testing. Apart from aneuploidies, prenatal screening for non-structural disorders, such as Beta thalassemia (both parents carriers) or investigating any other genetic disorder can also be offered. In addition, Carrier Screening can be considered especially by consanguineous couples who are known to be at increased risk for having an affected baby. The option for NIPS is now preferred by most parents undergoing pre-conception genetic counselling and confirmed to be carriers for an autosomal recessive genetic disease. The prenatal screening is the best choice for secondary prevention of genetic condition. The option for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) offers primary prevention by specific wild embryo selection and implantation in an in vitro fertilization cycle, following exclusion of affected embryo for aneuploidy (PGD-A), structural chromosome aberration (PGD-A), and a monogenic Mendelian genetic disease (PGD-M). The prenatal screening or diagnosis by the Fetal Medicine Team remains the mainstay for identification and management of pregnancies at high risk of genetic disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communicating the diagnosis of Down Syndrome to a couple of parents is never easy, whether before or after birth. As doctors, we must certainly rely on our own relational skills, but it is also necessary to be confident in some general indications, which are often overlooked in the strict hospital routine. This article is intended as a summary of the main articles published on this subject in the international literature, collecting and summarising the most important indications that have emerged in years of medical practice all over the world as well as in our personal experience. The diffusion of these guidelines is essential to help the doctor in this difficult task, on which there is often little training, and above all to guarantee to the parents the least traumatic communication possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Ciencias Médicas de Pinar del Río is the property of Editorial Ciencias Medicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This clinical report offers guidance for the pediatrician in caring for the child, adolescent and family in whom a diagnosis of Down syndrome has been confirmed by chromosome analysis or suspected by prenatal screening. Topics discussed include cooccurring medical conditions and cognitive impairment in children with Down syndrome, common physical findings such as hypotonia, epicanthal folds, and flat nasal bridge, and common medical conditions such as hearing loss, and obstructive sleep apnea.

Aim: This study aimed to assess the utility of ultrasound screening for pregnancies with positive noninvasive prenatal testing results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of positive noninvasive prenatal testing results and first‐trimester ultrasound screening at our department between 2013 and 2019. Invasive genetic testing was performed if the patient had positive noninvasive prenatal testing results. Fetal ultrasound and cytogenetic data were collected. Noninvasive prenatal testing was performed in the women for advanced maternal age, nuchal translucency thickness, or history of abnormality in the previous child or relative. Results: Forty‐one pregnant women had positive noninvasive prenatal testing results for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Twenty‐three women had positive results for trisomy 21, 13 had positive results for trisomy 18, and 5 had positive results for trisomy 13 at 11 to 14 weeks of gestation. The positive predictive value of noninvasive prenatal testing was 100% for trisomy 21, 84.6% for trisomy 18, and 100% for trisomy 13. The positive predictive value of positive noninvasive prenatal testing results and fetal morphological abnormalities was 100% for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. Conclusion: Combining an ultrasound examination with noninvasive prenatal testing resulted in a higher positive predictive value for trisomy 18. Normal ultrasound examination results can help alleviate stress caused by false‐positive noninvasive prenatal testing results. In contrast, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value for trisomy 21 were not altered by adding an ultrasound examination to noninvasive prenatal testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We developed a decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed decisions about prenatal screening for trisomy. We aimed to determine its usefulness for preparing for decision-making and its acceptability among end-users.Methods: In this mixed-methods pilot study, we recruited participants in three prenatal care settings in Quebec City. Eligible women were over 18 and more than 16 weeks pregnant or had given birth recently. We asked them about the usefulness of the DA using an interview grid based on the Technology Acceptance Model. We performed descriptive statistics and deductive analysis.Results: Thirty-nine dyads or individuals participated in the study. Mean usefulness score was 86.2 ± 13. Most participants found the amount of information in the DA just right (79.5%), balanced (89.7%), and very useful (61.5%). They were less satisfied with the presentation and the values worksheet and suggested different values clarification methods.Conclusion: Rigorous pilot tests of DAs with patients are an important stage in their development before the more formal assessments that precede scaling up the DA in clinical practice.Practice Implications: The next version of the DA will integrate the suggestions of end-users for better decision-making processes about prenatal screening for trisomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review the uptake rate of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the first 12 months of implementation in the obstetric unit of United Christian Hospital. Methods: Between December 2019 and November 2020, women with a fetal Down syndrome (DS) risk ratio of ≥1:250 after first-trimester DS screening (using maternal serum markers and nuchal translucency thickness on ultrasonography) or second-trimester DS screening (using maternal serum markers) were offered free-of-charge second-tier NIPT or invasive testing. Results of NIPT and invasive testing and pregnancy outcome of these women were reviewed. Characteristics of those opting for NIPT versus invasive testing were compared. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to determine significant factors associated with opting for NIPT. Results: During the study period, 2182 women underwent first-trimester DS screening (n=2086) or second-trimester DS screening (n=96). 117 women were screen positive, with a DS risk ratio of <1:250. The screen-positive rate was 5.36% overall and 5.23% for first trimester and 8.33% for second trimester. Of the 117 women, 26 had NIPT in private settings before or after being screened positive, 89 opted for NIPT (n=65) or invasive testing (n=24) in our hospital, and two did not have further testing owing to spontaneous miscarriage (n=1) or termination of pregnancy (n=1). Of 91 women with NIPT, 84 (92.3%) were at low risk for common aneuploidies, four were at high risk for T21 (n=2) or T18 (n=2), and three had abnormalities other than common aneuploidies. Six of the high-risk women underwent invasive testing and abnormalities were confirmed. Of the 24 women who opted for invasive testing, 14 had normal results and 10 had abnormal results. In logistic regression analysis, predictors for opting for invasive testing (rather than NIPT) were presence of abnormalities on ultrasonography (odds ratio (OR)=13.9, p=0.01), a nuchal translucency thickness of ≥3 mm (OR=7.62, p=0.01), and education level below tertiary level (OR=7.14, p=0.02). Conclusion: In the first 12 months of implementation in United Christian Hospital, the uptake rate of NIPT as a second-tier test after positive DS screening was 77.8%, which is higher than that reported in previous studies when NIPT was a self-financed test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compile current usage of serum-based prenatal screening for Down syndrome in the United States and compare it with results from a similar 2011/2012 survey. Setting: The College of American Pathologists maternal screening proficiency testing survey includes a supplemental question on the first of three yearly distributions. Methods: Information regarding tests offered and the monthly number of pregnancies tested for US-based laboratories were reviewed. Results were stratified by size of laboratory, tests offered, and pregnancies tested. Findings were compared to an earlier survey. Results: Fifty-six laboratories reported they will have screened 1,131,336 pregnancies in 2020. Of these, 36% are screened by stand-alone first trimester testing, 48% by stand-alone second trimester testing, and 16% using tests that integrate results from both trimesters. Eighty percent of all serum screens were provided by the five laboratories that performed the most screens (at least 50,000). These five performed similar proportions of first or second trimester screens (42.2% and 41.8%, respectively). Compared to eight years earlier, there are now 54% fewer laboratories. Pregnancies screened using the first trimester, second trimester, and integrated protocols were lower by 27%, 69%, and 72%, respectively. The serum screening activity in the US showed a 62% decrease from 2012 levels. During 2012–2020, the number of cell-free DNA tests increased from negligible to 1,492,332. Conclusions: Maternal serum screening for common aneuploidies has changed significantly in eight years with fewer laboratories, a shift toward larger laboratories and a 2.5-fold reduction in pregnancies tested, likely due to the introduction of cell-free DNA screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS) in maternity care, an ethical debate is newly inflamed how to deal with this information. Fears of the consequences of an increased use of NIPT are justified with the same arguments when amniocentesis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) were introduced decades ago. It can be expected that the prevalence of people with DS would significantly increase in Western societies as a result of the increasing age of pregnant women and the improved medical care for people with DS. The net effect as to whether an increasing uptake of NIPT will result in more abortions of fetuses with trisomy 21 cannot be reliably estimated. This holds true since more and more couples will use results of NIPT for information only, but will not opt for termination of pregnancy. Although parents love their children with DS, in a society where reproductive autonomy is seen as an achievement, access to NIPT cannot be limited. On this background, comprehensive and qualified pretest counseling is vital, also to avoid possible stigmatization of people with DS and as the resulting consequence to avoid feared deterioration in their living conditions, for which, however, there is no evidence to date. The personal view of a mother of a child with DS illustrates the complexity in dealing with NIPT, which does not allow simple answers and must be understood as a challenge for society as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most well-known goal of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is still to determine whether or not a fetus has trisomy 21. Since women often terminate the pregnancy upon a positive result, there is concern that the use of NIPT contributes to discrimination against persons with disabilities. If this concern is justified, it could have an impact on the wider social acceptability of existing testing practices and their potential further expansion. This paper demonstrates four different versions of the discrimination worry, indicates how international policy papers have reacted to them, and identifies the ethically most relevant feature of the concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soft markers were originally introduced to prenatal ultrasonography to improve the detection of trisomy 21 over that achievable with age-based and serum screening strategies. As prenatal genetic screening strategies have greatly evolved in the last 2 decades, the relative importance of soft markers has shifted. The purpose of this document is to discuss the recommended evaluation and management of isolated soft markers in the context of current maternal serum screening and cell-free DNA screening options. In this document, "isolated" is used to describe a soft marker that has been identified in the absence of any fetal structural anomaly, growth restriction, or additional soft marker following a detailed obstetrical ultrasound examination. In this document, "serum screening methods" refers to all maternal screening strategies, including first-trimester screen, integrated screen, sequential screen, contingent screen, or quad screen. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends the following approach to the evaluation and management of isolated soft markers: (1) we do not recommend diagnostic testing for aneuploidy solely for the evaluation of an isolated soft marker following a negative serum or cell-free DNA screening result (GRADE 1B); (2) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1B); (3) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated thickened nuchal fold or isolated absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (4) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 18 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1C); (5) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and an isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, we recommend no further evaluation as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for fetal echocardiography, follow-up ultrasound imaging, or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1B); (6) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated fetal echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (7) for pregnant people with negative serum screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and discussion of options for no further aneuploidy evaluation, noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA, or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (8) for pregnant people with negative cell-free DNA screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (9) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation, as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for follow-up ultrasound imaging or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1C); (10) for fetuses with isolated echogenic bowel, we recommend an evaluation for cystic fibrosis and fetal cytomegalovirus infection and a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C); (11) for fetuses with an isolated single umbilical artery, we recommend no additional evaluation for aneuploidy, regardless of whether results of previous aneuploidy screening were low risk or testing was declined. We recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination to evaluate growth and consideration of weekly antenatal fetal surveillance beginning at 36 0/7 weeks of gestation (GRADE 1C); (12) for fetuses with isolated urinary tract dilation A1, we recommend an ultrasound examination at ≥32 weeks of gestation to determine if postnatal pediatric urology or nephrology follow-up is needed. For fetuses with urinary tract dilation A2-3, we recommend an individualized follow-up ultrasound assessment with planned postnatal follow-up (GRADE 1C); (13) for fetuses with isolated shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and diagnostic value of genome-wide noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the detection of fetal aneuploidies in multiple gestations, with a focus on dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study including data from pregnant women with a twin or higher-order gestation who underwent genome-wide NIPT at one of the eight Belgian genetic centers between November 1, 2013, and March 1, 2020. Chorionicity and amnionicity were determined by ultrasonography. Follow-up invasive testing was carried out in the event of positive NIPT results. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the detection of trisomy 21, 18, and 13 in the dichorionic-diamniotic twin cohort.Results: Unique NIPT analyses were performed for 4,150 pregnant women with a multiple gestation and an additional 767 with vanishing gestations. The failure rate in multiple gestations excluding vanishing gestations ranged from 0% to 11.7% among the different genetic centers. Overall, the failure rate was 4.8%, which could be reduced to 1.2% after single resampling. There were no common fetal trisomies detected among the 86 monochorionic-monoamniotic and 25 triplet cases. Two monochorionic-diamniotic twins had an NIPT result indicative of a trisomy 21, which was confirmed in both fetuses. Among 2,716 dichorionic-diamniotic twin gestations, a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 74.12-100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 99.86-100%) was reached for trisomy 21 (n=12). For trisomy 18 (n=3), the respective values were 75% (95% CI 30.06-95.44%) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI 99.86-100%) specificity, and for trisomy 13 (n=2), 100% (95% CI 20.65-100%) sensitivity and 99.96% (95% CI 99.79-99.99%) specificity. In the vanishing gestation group, 28 NIPT results were positive for trisomy 21, 18, or 13, with only five confirmed trisomies.Conclusion: Genome-wide NIPT performed accurately for detection of aneuploidy in dichorionic-diamniotic twin gestations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Austere clinical settings, including remote military installations, face unique challenges in screening pregnant women for aneuploidy. The objective of this study was to compare the direct and indirect prenatal costs of traditional 2-part serum-based screening to cell-free DNA (cfDNA) for detection of trisomies 18 and 21 for a military treatment facility with limited in-house perinatal resources.Materials and Methods: We identified Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay as a surrogate for an austere clinical environment. A prenatal cost of care analysis incorporating direct and indirect expenses was performed to compare the 2 aneuploidy screening strategies for a theoretical cohort of 100 patients for detection of trisomies 18 and 21. The baseline aneuploidy uptake rate was determined using a historical cohort. Test performance characteristics were obtained from the contracting laboratory. Aneuploidy rates and costs were calculated using previously published data.Results: Assuming a baseline screen uptake rate of 87%, initial screening using the traditional approach would directly cost $8,285.01 versus $44,140.32 with cfDNA. Considering indirect costs such as travel, consultative services, evaluation and follow-up testing of an abnormal screen result, and lost productivity, the cost difference narrows to $14,458.25 over a 5- to 6-year period. Cost equivalence is achieved when cfDNA is priced at $341.17 per test.Conclusion: Cell-free DNA as an initial screening strategy offers enhanced detection rates for trisomies 18 and 21 but remains more costly than traditional screening when incorporating direct and indirect expenses. In a low volume setting with limited resources, the added cost may be justified given the implications of unrecognized aneuploidy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to present the termination of pregnancy (TOP) rates and elucidate the decision-making process following a prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 21 in Turkey. This retrospective single-center study was conducted with 146 pregnant women between January 2016 and December 2019 in a tertiary hospital. Data on maternal characteristics, sonographic findings, indications for chromosome analysis, and educational, religious, and economic factors that can influence the parental decision process were collected. The TOP rate of Down syndrome (DS) in our center was 78.8%. We concluded that maternal age, earlier diagnosis, indication for chromosome analysis, and previous pregnancies had no effect on the TOP decision. On the other hand, not having a minor or a major sonographic sign, employed mothers, middle- and high-income families, and families having a secondary or higher education tended to terminate the pregnancy affected by DS at statistically higher rates. There are many studies worldwide investigating the TOP preferences for DS. However, there is limited data about TOP rates and influential factors affecting the decision-making process in Muslim countries. This study contributes by clarifying the factors in the decision-making process and elucidating perspectives about TOP in a Muslim country with a unique status: Turkey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Maternal characteristics and neonatal outcomes associated with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) results were analysed retrospectively to assess the details of false-positive and false-negative results after initial blood sampling in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).Study Design: A multicentre retrospective study was performed for women undergoing NIPT who received discordant cfDNA results between April 2013 and March 2018. The NIPT data obtained using massive parallel sequencing were studied in terms of maternal background, fetal fraction, z-scores, invasive procedure results and neonatal outcomes after birth.Results: Of the 56,545 women who participated in this study, 54 false-positive (0.095 %) and three false-negative (0.006 %) cases were found. Seven of the 54 false-positive cases (13.0 %) had vanishing twin on ultrasonography. Among the 18 false-positive cases of trisomy 18, confined placental mosaicism (CPM) was confirmed in three cases (16.7 %), while CPM was present in one of the three false-negative cases of trisomy 21.Conclusion: These data suggest that the incidence of women with false-positive or false-negative results is relatively low, that such false results can often be explained, and that vanishing twin and CPM are potential causes of NIPT failure. Genetic counselling with regard to false results is important for clients prior to undergoing NIPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Down syndrome screening has been available within clinical practice for over 50 years within which time significant innovation and exciting new advances have improved the accuracy, safety, and choice for women who are considering antenatal screening for Down syndrome. The UK National Screening Committee is responsible for setting the national standards regarding screening and it has steadily and consistently directed and facilitated an increase in the detection rate whilst minimising the screen positive rate. This has reduced the number of false positive results and consequently the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and their related miscarriages. Non-invasive pre-natal testing (NIPT) using cell free DNA is a rapidly evolving field and it will soon be incorporated into the existing NHS antenatal screening programme for aneuploidy. It will be offered to women who receive a 'high risk' result following current screening methods (combined test or quadruple test), and will further reduce the number of invasive tests performed, whilst maintaining current detection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The objective of this study was to report on the clinical performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in twin pregnancies and to define the performance of NIPT by combining our cohort study results with published studies in a systematic meta-analysis.Material and Methods: A cohort study was carried out in the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and Kanghua Hospital. Meanwhile, searches of PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science for all relevant peer-reviewed articles were performed with a restriction to English language publication before 15 June 2019. Quality assessments were conducted with the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist. Data analysis, heterogeneity, subgroup analysis and publication bias were carried out using META-DISC 1.4 and STATA 12.0.Results: In all, 141 twin pregnancies included in our cohort study; confirmation revealed one true-positive case for trisomy 21 and 140 true-negative cases. The sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21 by NIPT were both 100%. Twenty-two eligible studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis together with our study. There were 199 cases of trisomy 21, 58 cases of trisomy 18, 14 cases of trisomy 13 and 6347 cases of euploids in total. For trisomy 21, NIPT showed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.99, 1.00, 145.81, 0.06 and 1714.09, respectively. For trisomy 18, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.88, 1.00, 200.98, 0.19 and 483.68, respectively.Conclusions: The performance of NIPT for trisomy 21 in twin pregnancy was excellent and it was similar to that reported in singleton pregnancy. However, due to publication bias (trisomy 18) and small number of cases (trisomy 13), accurate assessment of the predictive performance of NIPT for trisomies 18 and 13 could not be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the fourth in a series of papers. The previous papers inform midwifery practice by providing insight into whether, to what extent and how cognitive status influences understanding of Down syndrome screening information, the importance of tailoring information, and highlighting areas of communication that are effective in facilitating understanding. These findings led to the development of recommendations to inform a 'best practice' model for midwifery communication of screening information within a conceptual framework that recognises the importance of accurate facts, empathic communication and support for decision-making in a woman-centred approach. These recommendations may have wider relevance beyond midwife communication of Down syndrome screening and may impact upon the communication of other screening information provided within antenatal and neonatal screening. It is important that screening information is communicated effectively in light of changes to screening programmes, such as the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the use of contingent prenatal screening for the detection of Down's syndrome and neural tube defects (NTDs) in west of Iran. Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 653 pregnant women referred to a medical diagnostic laboratory (Imam Reza Clinic, Kermanshah, Iran) for contingent prenatal screening tests between October 2016 to September 2017. Results: Among 651 women screened in the first trimester, 8 (1.22%) pregnancies were screen-positive for Down's syndrome. In the second trimester, among 605 women, 25 (4.13%) had a positive result and all of these women voluntarily underwent amniocentesis. Overall, five pregnancies were complicated with chromosomal abnormalities, including five cases of Down's syndrome. Conclusion: In a nutshell, the contingent prenatal screening tests were found to be useful for estimation of Down's syndrome as well as NTDs in both young and older mothers in west of Iran. These tests should be performed for pregnant women before an invasive test for Down's syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the association between second-trimester serum Down syndrome screening (alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin [b-hCG] unconjugated estriol [uE3]) and preterm birth and to create predictive models for preterm birth.Methods: Secondary analysis on a prospective database of pregnancies undergoing second-trimester screen with complete follow-up. The multiples of medians (MoM) of the biomarkers were compared between the group of term, preterm (< 37 weeks), early preterm (< 34 weeks), and very early preterm (< 32 weeks) delivery. Predictive models were developed based on adjusted MoMs and logistic regression and diagnostic performances in predicting preterm birth were determined.Results: Of 20,780 pregnancies, 1,554 (7.5), 363 (1.7), and 158 (0.8%) had preterm, early preterm, and very early preterm birth respectively. High levels of AFP and b-hCG but low levels of uE3 were significantly associated with higher rates of preterm, early preterm and very early preterm delivery. The predictive models had diagnostic performance in predicting preterm birth with the areas under the ROC curve of 0.688, 0.534, 0.599, and 0.718 for AFP, b-hCG, uE3, and combined biomarkers respectively.Conclusion: The second trimester Down syndrome screening could also be used as a tool of risk identification of preterm birth in the same test, without extra-effort and extra-cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quantitative fluorescence-polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) is an inexpensive and accurate method for the prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies that applies short tandem repeats (STRs) as a chromosome-specific marker. Despite its apparent advantages, QF-PCR is not applicable in all cases due to the presence of uninformative STRs. This study was carried out to investigate the efficiency of a method based on applying segmental duplications (SDs) in conjunction with STRs as an alternative to stand-alone STR-based QF-PCR for the diagnosis of Down syndrome. Methods: Fifty amniotic fluid samples from pregnant women carrying Down syndrome fetuses, 9 amniotic fluid samples with 1 or without any informative STR marker (inconclusive), and 100 normal samples were selected from Shiraz, Iran, between October 2015 and December 2016. Analysis was done using an in-house STR-SD-based multiplex QF-PCR and the results were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc, version 14. Results: All the normal, Down syndrome, and inconclusive samples were accurately identified by the STR-SD-based multiplex QF-PCR, yielding 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Karyotype analysis confirmed all the cases with normal or trisomic results. Conclusion: The STR-SD-based multiplex QF-PCR correctly identified all the normal and trisomy 21 samples regardless of the absence of informative STR markers. The STR-SD-based multiplex QF-PCR is a feasible and particularly useful assay in populations with a high prevalence of homozygote STR markers. [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]

Objective: Noninvasive prenatal diagnosing for fetal trisomy 21 could help to avoid unnecessary amniocentesis. It is feasible to target the cell-free placental-specific mRNA in maternal plasma, thus eliminating the interference from the maternal genetic background.Study Design: In this study, placental-specific genes on chromosome 21 were identified by searching the TiGER database and reviewing the published literature. These cell-free placental-specific mRNA fragments in maternal plasma were amplified and sequenced. Then, the allelic ratio of heterozygous single-nucleotide polymorphisms(SNPs) was analyzed.Results: Four placental-specific genes (DNMT3L, KRTAP26-1, PLAC4, DSCR4) were identified. This study included 42 cases of normal pregnancies and 19 cases of trisomy 21 pregnancies. The probability density function showed that the allelic ratio of heterozygous SNPs in normal pregnancy reached a peak at 1.0, and that in the trisomy 21 pregnancy was a double-peaked curve in both 0.5 and 2.0. However, the allelic ratio of heterozygous SNPs demonstrated no statistical difference between the normal and trisomy 21 pregnancies.Conclusion: Fetal trisomy 21 could not be diagnosed by examining the heterozygous SNPs of cell-free placental-specific mRNA on chromosome 21. This might be because the low quantity and quality of cell-free placental-specific mRNA fragments in maternal plasma, and the limited available heterozygous SNPs on the placental-specific genes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study is to identify the optimal cut-off points of contingent serum screening excluding nuchal translucency (NT) measurement, to categorize the risk level in the first trimester.Methods: A prospective database of women undergoing contingent serum screening, without NT measurement, was reviewed. In conventional categorization, the results of first-trimester screening were categorized into high risk (>1:30) (invasive diagnosis was offered); intermediate risk (1:30-1:1500) (second-trimester screening was needed); and low risk (<1:1500) (no further test). We recategorized the risk levels using various upper and lower cut-offs and compared detection rates, false-positive rates, and rates of intermediate risk.Results: Among 24,874 women, the prevalence of Down syndrome was 1:691. The previously agreed cut-offs had a detection rate of 88.9% and a false-positive rate of 8.5% with high rate of intermediate risk (38.2%). Re-categorization provided the optimal lower and upper cut-offs 1/900 and 1/50, respectively, giving a detection rate of 86.1%, a false-positive rate of 8.1%, and a rate of intermediate risk of 24.8%.Conclusions: This is the first study on contingent serum screening without NT measurement which shows a high detection rate with an acceptable false-positive rate. The optimal cut-offs to categorize the risk levels of the upper and the lower cut-off was 1:30-1:50 and 1:900, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual detection of α-fetoprotein (AFP) and free β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) is a common screening method for Down syndrome in the second trimester and its efficacy is assessed by false-positive rate (FPR). The present study aimed to investigate the effects of the bias in median multiple of the median (mMoM) values of AFP and free β-HCG on FPR. The bias in mMoM values of AFP and free β-HCG and the bias in mMoM values under different gestational ages and weight groups were analyzed. Median equations were adjusted, and medians in LifeCycle software were replaced by local medians. Following two adjustments of the median equations, all indices including FPR, mMoM values of markers and mMoM values under different gestational ages and weight groups generally reached an ideal state. In conclusion, abnormal bias in mMoM values may prompt aberrant application of median equations, and regular monitoring of these indicators may be important for quality control in prenatal screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the performance of high-resolution chromosomal microarray (CMA) as the standard diagnostic approach for genomic imbalances in pregnancies with increased risk based on combined first-trimester screening (cFTS).Methods: This was a retrospective study of genomic findings in a cohort of 575 consecutive pregnancies undergoing invasive testing because of a cFTS risk ≥ 1:300 on a publicly funded population-based screening program in the Central and Northern Regions of Denmark, between September 2015 and September 2016. Women with fetal nuchal translucency thickness ≥ 3.5 mm or opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) were excluded. Comparative genomic hybridization was performed using a 180-K oligonucleotide array on DNA extracted directly from chorionic villus/amniocentesis samples. Genomic outcomes were reported in relation to cFTS findings.Results: Of the 575 pregnancies that underwent invasive testing, CMA detected 22 (3.8% (95% CI, 2.5-5.7%)) cases of trisomies 21, 18 and 13, 14 (2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-4.0%)) cases of other types of aneuploidy and 15 (2.6% (95% CI, 1.5-4.3%)) cases with a pathogenic or probably pathogenic copy number variant (CNV). Of the 15 CNVs, three were > 10 Mb and would probably have been detected by chromosomal analysis, but the other 12 would most probably not have been detected using conventional cytogenetic techniques; therefore, the overall detection rate of CMA (8.9% (95% CI, 6.8-11.5%)) was significantly higher than that estimated for conventional cytogenetic analysis (6.8% (95% CI, 5.0-9.1%)) (P = 0.0049). Reducing the cFTS risk threshold for invasive diagnostic testing to 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 would have led, respectively, to 60% or 100% of the pathogenic CNVs being missed.Conclusions: CMA is a valuable diagnostic technique that can identify an increased number of genomic aberrations in pregnancies at increased risk on cFTS. Limiting diagnostic testing to pregnancies with a risk above 1 in 100 or 1 in 50, as proposed in contingent NIPT/invasive testing models, would lead to a significant proportion of pathogenic CNVs being missed at first-trimester screening. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: Methylated DNA immunoprecipitation real‐time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (MeDIP‐real‐time qPCR) has been introduced as noninvasive prenatal test that has shown absolute detection rate in the screening of Down syndrome. Herein, we aimed to propose a novel modification of MeDIP‐qPCR and assess its potential to alleviate the overall cost of the test, being used in very early weeks of pregnancy, and develop it to a noninvasive prenatal diagnosis biosensor in future researches. Methods: Cell‐free fetal DNA (cffDNA) isolated from 60 pregnant women, including 29 normal and 31 trisomy 21 pregnancies, were analyzed using proposed MeDIP protocol. Enriched methylated DNA sequences were amplified through real‐time qPCR using eight fetal‐specific primer pairs. The status of samples was determined through the calculation of D‐value with the cutoff point of zero. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the MeDIP protocols using nanoparticles were 100% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: Remarkable decrease in the price of MeDIP test per each patient would be a reasonable factor to confirm it on larger sample size. Moreover, the high detection rate of screening and the availability of the required instruments around the world make satisfactory reasons to be tested in earlier weeks of pregnancy, thanks to the high sensitivity of gold shell nanoparticles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prenatal aneuploidy screening changed significantly in 2012 when cell-free fetal deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was introduced as a noninvasive prenatal test. A noninvasive prenatal test detects cell free fragments of fetal DNA from the placenta circulating in maternal blood that coexist with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of maternal origin. Using next-generation sequencing, the noninvasive prenatal test compares maternal and fetal cfDNA ratios for chromosomes of interest (i.e., 21, 18, 13, X, and Y) to assess chromosomal aneuploidy. Compared to traditional screening using ultrasound and serum markers, the noninvasive prenatal test has superior test characteristics, including a higher detection rate and positive predictive value, and a lower false-positive rate. The noninvasive prenatal test is already used for primary screening in high-risk women and is rapidly expanding to all women. Given its increasing use, understanding the noninvasive prenatal test's limitations is critical. Discordant results (i.e. noninvasive prenatal test is positive for aneuploidy with a normal fetal karyotype) can occur because of biological processes such as aneuploidy confined to the placenta, a vanished twin, maternal aneuploidy or maternal cancer. Use of the noninvasive prenatal test for screening beyond the most common aneuploidies is not recommended. The noninvasive prenatal test is a major advance in prenatal aneuploidy screening but it is not diagnostic and does not replace invasive testing (i.e. chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis) for confirmation of fetal chromosomal disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are fetal fraction, test failure rate and positive predictive value (PPV) of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing different in singleton IVF conceptions compared to spontaneous conceptions?Summary Answer: Fetal fraction is significantly lower; test failure rate is higher and PPV of cffDNA testing is lower in singleton pregnancies conceived by IVF than those conceived spontaneously.What Is Already Known: cffDNA testing, which analyses circulating cffDNA in maternal blood, has very high accuracy for detection of trisomy 21 in the general obstetric population. Focused and conclusive evidence regarding the test characteristics of cffDNA testing in IVF conceived pregnancies is lacking.Study Design, Size, Duration: This was a retrospective cohort study including spontaneously and IVF conceived singleton pregnancies collected consecutively between April 2013 and November 2016. A total of 4633 spontaneously conceived and 992 IVF pregnancies were included.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The study was performed at an obstetric and gynecological ultrasound clinic in Melbourne, Australia. Participants had screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, as well as sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA) performed with cffDNA testing after 10 weeks' gestation. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine significant predictors of logarithmically transformed fetal fraction and test failure. Comparison of test characteristics between study groups was performed adopting a significance level of 5%.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Median fetal fraction was lower (10.3% [interquartile range (IQR), 7.7-13.5] versus 11.9% [IQR, 9.1-15.0]; P = 0.005), test failure rate was higher (5.2 versus 2.2%; P < 0.001) and positive predictive value (PPV) for trisomies 18, 13 and SCA was poorer in IVF pregnancies compared to those spontaneously conceived. Multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated that IVF conception, increased BMI, earlier gestational age and South and East Asian ethnicities were independent predictors of lower fetal fraction. Multiple logistic regression analysis found IVF conception and increased BMI to be independently associated with test failure. PPV was high for trisomy 21 in IVF conception (100.0%), but was lower for other trisomies when compared with the non-IVF population.Limitations Reasons For Caution: IVF details were unascertainable for 210 cases, as the information was not available through our data collection points. Inability to karyotype some cases at high-risk for SCA, due to patients' choice, and the occurrence of miscarriages and terminations, resulted in the exclusion of high-risk cases when calculating PPV. Pregnancy outcomes were not available in low-risk pregnancies and negative predictive values could not be calculated.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The limitations revealed by this work should be taken into account during pre-test counseling in pregnant women who conceive by IVF.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No external source of financial support was provided for this research. The authors report no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Down syndrome, which is the most common human chromosomal anomaly that can affect people of any race and age, can be diagnosed prenatally in most cases. Prenatal diagnosis via culture method is time-consuming; thus, genetic analysis has thus been introduced and is continually being developed for rapid prenatal diagnosis. For this reason, the effective use of microRNA profiling for the rapid analysis of prenatal amniotic fluid samples for the diagnosis of Down syndrome was investigated. Aims: To evaluate the expression levels of 14 microRNAs encoded by chromosome 21 in amniotic fluid samples and their utility for prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Study Design: Case-control study. Methods: We performed invasive prenatal testing for 56 pregnant women; 23 carried fetuses with Down syndrome, and 33 carried fetuses with a normal karyotype. Advanced maternal age and increased risk for Down syndrome in the screening tests were indications for invasive prenatal testing. The age of gestation in the study and control groups ranged between 17 and 18 weeks. The expression levels of microRNA were measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: The expression levels of microRNA-125b-2, microRNA-155, and microRNA-3156 were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group. Conclusion: The presence of significantly dysregulated microRNAs may be associated with either the phenotype or the result of abnormal development. Further large-scale comparative studies conducted in a variety of conditions may bring novel insights in the field of abnormal prenatal conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I investigate the ways in which phenomenology could guide our views on the rights and/or wrongs of abortion. To my knowledge very few phenomenologists have directed their attention toward this issue, although quite a few have strived to better understand and articulate the strongly related themes of pregnancy and birth, most often in the context of feminist philosophy. After introducing the ethical and political contemporary debate concerning abortion, I introduce phenomenology in the context of medicine and the way phenomenologists have understood the human body to be lived and experienced by its owner. I then turn to the issue of pregnancy and discuss how the embryo or foetus could appear for us, particularly from the perspective of the pregnant woman, and what such showing up may mean from an ethical perspective. The way medical technology has changed the experience of pregnancy-for the pregnant woman as well as for the father and/or other close ones-is discussed, particularly the implementation of early obstetric ultra-sound screening and blood tests (NIPT) for Down's syndrome and other medical defects. I conclude the article by suggesting that phenomenology can help us to negotiate an upper time limit for legal abortion and, also, provide ways to determine what embryo-foetus defects to look for and in which cases these should be looked upon as good reasons for performing an abortion. [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]

Down screening has been available within clinical practice for over 50 years during which time significant innovation and exciting new advances have improved the accuracy and safety of screening, and improved choice for women who are considering antenatal screening for Down syndrome. The UK National Screening Committee is responsible for setting the national standards regarding screening and it has steadily and consistently directed and facilitated an increase in the detection rate whilst minimising the screen positive rate of Down syndrome screening. This has reduced the number of false positive results and consequently the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and their related miscarriages. Non-invasive pre-natal testing (NIPT) using cell free DNA is a rapidly evolving field and it will soon be incorporated into the existing NHS antenatal screening programme for aneuploidy. It will be offered to women who receive a ‘high risk’ result following current screening methods (combined test or quadruple test), and will further reduce the number of invasive tests performed, whilst maintaining current detection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy is commercially available in many countries, little is known about how obstetric professionals in non-Western populations perceive the clinical usefulness of NIPT in comparison with existing first-trimester combined screening (FTS) for Down syndrome (DS) or invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD), or perceptions of their ethical concerns arising from the use of NIPT.Methods: A cross-sectional survey among 327 obstetric professionals (237 midwives, 90 obstetricians) in Hong Kong.Results: Compared to FTS, NIPT was believed to: provide more psychological benefits and enable earlier consideration of termination of pregnancy. Compared to IPD, NIPT was believed to: provide less psychological stress for high-risk women and more psychological assurance for low-risk women, and offer an advantage to detect chromosomal abnormalities earlier. Significant differences in perceived clinical usefulness were found by profession and healthcare sector: (1) obstetricians reported more certain views towards the usefulness of NIPT than midwives and (2) professionals in the public sector perceived less usefulness of NIPT than the private sector. Beliefs about earlier detection of DS using NIPT were associated with ethical concerns about increasing abortion. Participants believing that NIPT provided psychological assurance among low-risk women were less likely to be concerned about ethical issues relating to informed decision-making and pre-test consultation for NIPT.Conclusions: Our findings suggest the need for political debate initially on how to ensure pregnant women accessing public services are informed about commercially available more advanced technology, but also on the potential implementation of NIPT within public services to improve access and equity to DS screening services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine whether maternal plasma collected in cell-free DNA stabilizing tubes is suitable for measuring prenatal screening ‘serum’ markers. Methods Matched plasma and serum samples were collected from 41 second trimester and 42 first trimester non-Down’s syndrome pregnancies. Second trimester samples were tested for alpha-fetoprotein, unconjugated estriol, human chorionic gonadotropin, and inhibin-A (Beckman Coulter DxI immunoassay). First trimester samples were tested for human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A. Method comparisons performed for each marker compared plasma and serum results. Down’s syndrome likelihood ratios in serum and plasma were compared. Results Plasma and serum results for all markers were highly correlated (r > 0.983) but for all, plasma results differed, usually by proportional amounts. After conversion to multiples of the median using sample type-specific medians, the logarithmic standard deviations in serum and plasma did not differ (all p > 0.37). Likelihood ratios for the first and second trimester marker combinations were highly correlated and closely agreed (log likelihood ratios range 1.005 to 1.032; 1.000 indicates complete agreement). Conclusions These results using specialized plasma collection tubes are similar to those of our earlier study showing that plasma collected in EDTA tubes is suitable for ‘serum’ Down’s syndrome screening. Laboratories must account for proportional changes by computing new plasma medians or modifying existing serum medians. Using a portion of the plasma from cell-free DNA collection tubes for ‘serum screening’ may have an advantage in programmes that are reflexively testing cell-free DNA, as only one sample type need be collected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Prenatal screening with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers improved detection of Down syndrome (T21) compared to conventional screening. These tests are expensive and have fewer detectable anomalies. Our objective was to investigate potential costs and test performance of screening algorithms when accounting for detectable aneuploidies.Methods: This is a cost analysis for a large military treatment facility. Using a theoretical delivery cohort and published performance data, universal screening with cfDNA was compared to sequential screening, comparing T21 to all detectable aneuploidies. Predicted test performance and costs were calculated.Results: A cohort of 3000 deliveries was used. For T21, universal cfDNA is more expensive ($1,346,064) than sequential screening ($244,885), but has a lower false positive rate and avoids 101 invasive diagnostic tests. An additional case of T21 is detected with a marginal cost of $1,101,179. For all detectable aneuploidies, cfDNA is more expensive ($1,353,660) than sequential screening ($239,189), and 59 invasive diagnostic tests are avoided. Sequential screening detects an additional case of aneuploidy, with a cost savings of $1,114,471.Conclusions: Although cfDNA is superior in detecting T21 cases, sequential screening is superior when considering all aneuploidies detectable. The cost increase with universal cfDNA is significant, and is not justified with small improvements in the performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of a previously developed model for the first-trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13.Methods: This was a prospective validation study of screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by assessment of a combination of maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency, fetal heart rate and serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation in 108 982 singleton pregnancies undergoing routine care in three maternity hospitals. A previously published algorithm was used to calculate patient-specific risks for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in each patient. The detection rate (DR) and false-positive rate (FPR) at estimated risk cut-offs from 1 in 2 to 1 in 1000 were determined. The proportions of trisomies detected were compared to their expected values in different risk groups.Results: In the study population, there were 108 112 (99.2%) cases with normal fetal karyotype or birth of a phenotypically normal neonate and 870 (0.8%) cases with abnormal karyotype, including trisomy 21 (n = 432), trisomy 18 (n = 166), trisomy 13 (n = 56), monosomy X (n = 63), triploidy (n = 35) or other aneuploidy (n = 118). The screen-positive rates, standardized according to the maternal age distribution in England and Wales in 2011, of fetuses with abnormal or normal karyotype were compatible with those predicted from the previous model; at a risk cut-off of 1 in 100, the FPR was about 4% and the DRs for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 were 90%, 97% and 92%, respectively. There was evidence that the algorithm overestimated risk. This could, to some degree, reflect under-ascertainment in pregnancies ending in miscarriage or stillbirth.Conclusion: In a prospective validation study, the first-trimester combined test detected 90%, 97% and 92% of trisomies 21, 18 and 13, respectively, as well as > 95% of cases of monosomy X and triploidies and > 50% of other chromosomal abnormalities, at a FPR of 4%. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to identify key genes located on chromosome 21 as potential biomarkers for prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 (Ts21). The microarray data of GSE48051, including 10 cultivated amniocyte samples with Ts21 and 9 controls with normal euploid constitution, was obtained from Gene Expression Omnibus database. The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in cultivated amniocyte samples with Ts21 compared to normal controls were screened using limma package. Then, we performed GO enrichment analysis using DAVID and chromosomal location of DEGs based on the information of the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) Genome Browser Database. Finally, protein–protein interaction (PPI) network analysis was performed using STRING. Total 155 DEGs in cultivated amniocyte samples with Ts21 were identified, including 89 up- and 66 down-regulated DEGs. The over-represented GO terms of DEGs were mainly related with apoptosis, programmed cell death and cell death. In total, 13 DEGs were located on chromosome 21, thereinto, only 6 DEGs were included into the PPI network, including superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1), phosphoribosylglycinamide formyltransferase, phosphoribosylglycinamide synthetase, phosphoribosylaminoimidazole synthetase (GART), downstream neighbour of SON (DONSON), ATP synthase, H + transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, O subunit (ATP5O), chromatin assembly factor 1, subunit B (p60) (CHAF1B) and proteasome (prosome, macropain) assembly chaperone 1 (PSMG1). Our results suggest that SOD1, GART, DONSON, ATP5O, CHAF1B and PSMG1 may play important roles in the pathogenesis of Down syndrome and may serve as potential biomarkers for prenatal diagnosis of Ts21. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To assess the incidence of sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) predicted by noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), assess test performance, and compare it with nuchal translucency (NT) screening among patients seen in our prenatal diagnosis center.Methods: We identified suspected cases of SCA by reviewing results from all NIPT samples sent from our center to commercial laboratories offering analysis by cell-free DNA between 1 December 2012 and 31 July 2015. Records of pregnancies positive for SCA were reviewed for ultrasound findings, NIPT indications, and karyotype results on maternal, fetal, and postnatal samples. Other SCA cases presenting during this period regardless of NIPT status were identified from genetic counseling and cytogenetics laboratory logbooks.Results: Noninvasive prenatal testing predicted SCA in 18/2851 patients (0.63%). All had diagnostic testing of fetal or newborn samples. No patients terminated pregnancies on the basis of NIPT. NIPT suggested triple X in five cases, two with elevated NT: all were confirmed on karyotype. Two Klinefelter syndrome cases were also accurately predicted by NIPT. NIPT indicated monosomy X in 11 cases. Only one was a true positive. Ten were false positives, with 46, XX found on fetal or newborn karyotype. Maternal karyotype was mosaic (45, X[4], 46, XX[26]) in one case. Over the same time period, four additional cases of 45, X were confirmed on fetal samples, all with cystic hygromas. One of these had had a false negative NIPT result. The remaining patients pursued only direct testing via CVS or amniocentesis.Conclusions: Sex chromosome aneuploidy was frequently suspected on NIPT. False positive rate for monosomy X was surprisingly high (91%). Prediction of other SCA was more accurate. Diagnostic fetal chromosome analysis should be offered after abnormal NIPT or in the presence of cystic hygromas despite normal NIPT. NIPT limitations should be explained in pretest counseling. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The availability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidies is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Training health professionals to offer NIPT in a way that supports informed choice is essential for implementation. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a training package for health professionals to support the introduction of NIPT into clinical practice.Methods: Training on NIPT was offered to health professionals, primarily midwives, involved in Down syndrome screening and testing in eight hospitals located in England and Scotland as part of a research study evaluating the implementation of NIPT in the UK National Health Service. Training was evaluated using a mixed methods approach that included quantitative questionnaires at three time points and post-training qualitative interviews. The questionnaires measured confidence, self-perceived knowledge and actual knowledge about NIPT for Down syndrome. Interviews explored opinions about the training and experiences of offering NIPT.Results: The training provided to the health professionals was found to positively impact on their confidence in discussing NIPT with women in their clinic, and both their perceived and actual knowledge and understanding of NIPT was improved. Knowledge remained weak in four areas; cell-free fetal DNA levels increase with gestation; turnaround time for NIPT results; cell-free fetal DNA is placental in origin; and NIPT false positive rate.Conclusions: Training materials, including a lesson plan, PowerPoint presentation and written factsheet on NIPT, have been developed and evaluated for use in educating midwives and supporting the introduction of NIPT. Implementation of training should include a greater focus on the areas where knowledge remained low. Some groups of midwives will need additional training or support to optimise their confidence in discussing NIPT with women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the parental decisions about prenatal screening and diagnosis among infants with trisomy 21 (T21) in a national cohort with high uptake of combined first-trimester screening (cFTS).Material and Methods: This was a nationwide population-based study including infants born in 2009-2012. Information from the cFTS, fetal karyotype results and pregnancy outcome was obtained from the Danish Fetal Medicine Database on all women with a cFTS risk assessment. Cut-off for referral for invasive testing was ≥1:300. Karyotype results from pregnancies with no cFTS were obtained from the Danish Cytogenetic Central Registry.Results: The uptake rate of cFTS was 91.6%, and 82.8% (8,032/9,704) of the screen-positive women opted for invasive testing. Overall, 82.2% (454/552) chose to terminate an affected pregnancy. In the 4-year period, 102 of 232,962 singletons were born alive with T21. The cFTS risk was true-positive, false-negative or not obtained in 21.6, 48.0 and 30.4%, respectively, of these pregnancies.Discussion: In this large national cohort, 4.4 per 10,000 live-born infants had T21. Of 102 infants with T21 from 2009 to 2012, 52.0% were born after the women had not opted for cFTS or were true-positive but declined invasive testing or termination, and 48.0% were born after a false-negative risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Screening for Down syndrome ( DS) is a key component of antenatal care, recommended to be universally offered to women irrespective of age or background. Despite this, the diagnosis of DS is often not made until the neonatal period. Aims To retrospectively describe and compare the differences in populations with an antenatal diagnosis ( AD) and neonatal diagnosis ( ND) of DS and to explore why an antenatal diagnosis was not made. Materials and methods The cohorts were women cared for at Westmead Hospital whose pregnancy received a diagnosis of DS between 2006 and 2015. The demographic variables of the AD and ND cohorts were examined and reasons why an antenatal diagnosis was not made in the ND cohort were analysed. Results There were 127 diagnoses of DS in the 10-year period, of which 41% were in the ND cohort ( n = 52) and 59% in the AD ( n = 75). Declaring a religious affiliation rather than Nil Religion was significantly more common in the ND cohort (88.5%) and especially the ND sub-cohort who declined DS screening/testing (95.8%) than the AD cohort (72%, P < 0.05). Women who were not offered screening were significantly younger ( P < 0.001) than those who were, with 69% and 20% being ≤30 years, respectively. Conclusions The proportion of DS pregnancies diagnosed in the antenatal period in western Sydney could be increased by ensuring younger women are not falsely reassured that DS screening is unnecessary for them. While religious affiliation may be a factor when women decline screening, ensuring appropriate counselling remains important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate first-trimester screening protocols for detecting trisomy 21 in an Indian population.Methods: The present prospective study collected data from women with singleton pregnancies and a crown-to-rump length of 45-84 mm who presented at the fetal medicine unit of a tertiary care center in North India between June 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, for combined first-trimester screening. Maternal age, nuchal translucency, nasal bone, and maternal serum levels of free beta human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A were assessed for calculating the risk of trisomy 21. Tricuspid regurgitation and qualitative analysis of ductus venosus data were available from June 2010, and were included where available. Trisomy-21 detection rates were calculated for various screening protocols and were compared.Results: There were 4523 women screened and 24 records of trisomy 21. Combined screening with maternal age, nuchal translucency, nasal bone, tricuspid regurgitation, and ductus venosus demonstrated optimal detection and false-positive rates of 93.8% and 1.9%, respectively. Screening using only maternal age yielded a detection rate of 37.5%; using fixed nuchal translucency cut-off values of 2.5 and 3 mm resulted in detection rates of 66.7% and 37.5%, respectively.Conclusion: Combined first-trimester screening performed well in an Indian population; combining maternal age, nuchal translucency, nasal bone, ductus venosus, and tricuspid regurgitation yielded the most accurate screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy and neural tube defects evolves technologically and becomes increasingly utilized worldwide, an evaluation of the available evidence on women’s experiences with prenatal screening is warranted. Aims: To conduct an integrative review to enhance understanding of women’s experiences with prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy and neural tube defects. Design: Systematic literature searches from January 2005 through January 2016, using the CINAHL, PubMed, and PsychInfo electronic databases and ancestry searches of included studies were performed to identify previously published, peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies. Review methods: The integrative review method as proposed by Whittemore and Knafl was selected. Results: Thirty-nine studies were included in the review. The literature reveals that prenatal screening occurs in a complex social, ethical, and political reality. A theme of paradox emerged indicating the incongruity between reported and perceived risk, the tension between informational utility and moral decisions concerning pregnancy management, and the pervasive influences of authoritative and experiential knowledge. Conclusion: There is a need for future inquiry to critically examine the interrelationships of individual, biomedical, ethical, and sociopolitical factors surrounding prenatal screening. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help people make difficult, values-sensitive decisions. Prenatal screening for assessing the risk of genetic conditions in the fetus is one such decision and patient decision aids are rarely used in this clinical context. We sought to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a patient decision aid for deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS).Methods: This qualitative study was embedded in a sequential mixed-methods research program whose main aim is to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of prenatal screening for DS in the province of Quebec, Canada. We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 pregnant women with low-risk pregnancy consulting for prenatal care at three clinical sites. Participating women watched a video depicting a prenatal care follow-up during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA to decide about prenatal screening for DS. The women were then interviewed about factors that would influence the use of this PtDA using questions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed content analysis of transcribed verbatim interviews.Results: Out of 216 eligible women, 100 agreed to participate (46% response rate) and 46 were interviewed. Regarding the type of health professional responsible for their prenatal care, 19 participants (41%) reported having made a decision about prenatal screening for DS with an obstetrician-gynecologist, 13 (28%) with a midwife, 12 (26%) with a family physician, and two (4%) decided on their own. We identified 54 factors that were mapped onto nine of the 12 TDF domains. The three most frequently-mentioned were: opinion of the pregnant woman's partner (n = 33, 72%), presentation of the PtDA by health professional and a discussion (n = 27, 72%), and not having encountered a PtDA (n = 26, 57%).Conclusion: This study allowed us to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a PtDA for prenatal screening for DS. Use of a PtDA by health professionals and patients is one step in providing the needed decision support and our study results will allow us to design an effective implementation strategy for PtDAs for prenatal screening for DS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prenatal Diagnostics Testing is the only current method of clarifying suspicions on Down syndrome obtained as a result achieved through the increased risk screening. The pregnancy, by definition, is a period of great transformation, with multiple organic and psychological adaptation processes, while sensitivity touches high peaks and anything, as small as it could be, may disturb the equilibrium and cause psycho-emotional imbalances. Most often the diagnostic result of the screening is most likely to infirm the screening and will most probably reinstall the psycho-emotional stability, but mother's already anxious attitude may have already affected the child's future emotional development and behaviour. Methods: The present study is a narrative analysis, based on a collection of data from studies published in the databases of PubMed / Medline, SpringerLink, EBSCOhost, Elsevier and ResearchGate. Results: From reviewing the studies, there have been highlighted three themes: associated psychological effects, consequences and coping methods and practices and methods that can influence the psychological effects. Conclusion: The consequences and psychological effects, closely linked to the necessary diagnostic procedures and possible outcomes, require more interest from specialists which are now more focused on the diagnostic component. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Down syndrome (trisomy 21) is a well-known cause of mental retardation. It can be diagnosed in early pregnancy. Scientists have made great strides in outlining the pathophysiologic mechanisms of mental retardation in Down syndrome. Much less has been published on human therapy. To cur knowledge, these are the first published cases of fetal therapy for Down syndrome. Methodology: Reports of three cases. In all cases, treatment was both biochemical (e.g. nutritional) and educational. In all cases, treatment was both befcre and after birth. Results: All children lacked the characteristic faces usually seen in the children with Down syndrome. This suggests a treatment effect before birth. All children had better than expected development. Discussion: Enhancement of development is preposed as a new therapeutic principle. Developing neurons exchange neurotrophic factors during development when they give or receive stimulation from other neurons. Neurons which receive neurotrophic stimulation survive, and those, which do not, are lost to apoptosis. The developmental therapeutic principle seeks to optimize brain development. Biochemical inputs (neurotransmitters, drugs, hormones, nutrients) and functional stimulation are integrated to optimize the growth and survival of neurons individually; other cells; subcellular organelles; and the brain as a whole. Treatment may be before and after birth, both biochemical and functional. These principles may be applied to Down syndrome, other conditions, and normal fetuses or children. Previously published: Baggot PJ and Baggot RM (2014). Fetal Therapy for Down Syndrome: Report of three cases and review of the literature. J Am Phys Surg 19(l):20-24. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study that determined the effect of maternal age (MA) on the screening performance of traditional combined screening (CS) and ultrasound-based screening (US), two first-trimester screening strategies. Topics discussed include higher detection rate (DR) of trisomy 21 (T21) showed by US protocol compared to the CS one, and potential of US protocol as viable alternative to CS for T21 in cases where access to biochemical testing is limited.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to review the performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (T21, T18 and T13) in a general pregnant population as well as to update the data on high-risk pregnancies.Material and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Methodological quality was rated using QUADAS and scientific evidence using GRADE. Summary measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model.Results: In a general pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivity is 0.993 (95% CI 0.955-0.999) and specificity was 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999) for the analysis of T21. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for T13 and T18 was not calculated in this population due to the low number of studies. In a high-risk pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivities for T21 and T18 are 0.998 (95% CI 0.981-0.999) and 0.977 (95% CI 0.958-0.987) respectively, and low evidence that the pooled sensitivity for T13 is 0.975 (95% CI 0.819-0.997). The pooled specificity for all three trisomies is 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999).Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis using GRADE that shows that NIPT performs well as a screen for trisomy 21 in a general pregnant population. Although the false positive rate is low compared with first trimester combined screening, women should still be advised to confirm a positive result by invasive testing if termination of pregnancy is under consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Atrioventricular septal defect is associated with a high risk of a chromosomal abnormality, particularly trisomy 21. The aim of this study is to assess the rate of trisomy 21 in fetuses diagnosed with an atrioventricular septal defect and to examine the influence of prior screening on the rate of trisomy 21.Methods: Electronic ultrasound database was searched to identify fetuses diagnoses with an atrioventricular septal defect from 2002 to 2014. Rate of trisomy 21 and other aneuploidies was calculated among fetuses with normal situs. The prevalence of trisomy 21 and other aneuploidies was assessed in women with low and high first trimester risk for trisomy 21, using a cut-off value of 1:150 and 1:250.Results: A total 110 fetuses with a diagnosis of atrioventricular septal defect were identified. Among the 98 fetuses with normal situs, the prevalence of trisomy 21 was 46% (95% CI: 36-56%). Using a 1:150 threshold, the rate of trisomy 21 within the low-risk group was 41% (95% CI: 27-57%) while in the high-risk group it was 70% (95% CI: 52-83%), significantly higher than in the low risk group (p=0.028). Similar results were obtained when the 1:250 threshold was applied (66% versus 41%, p=0.055).Conclusions: The rate of trisomy 21 among fetuses identified with an atrioventricular septal defect in the second trimester is high even in those that undergo first trimester combined screening. Some fetuses with a high-risk screening result show a normal karyotype. Therefore, an offer of an invasive procedure to check fetal karyotyping is indicated. Knowledge of these rates may be helpful for parents in the decision making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]