Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2017

12.07.2017 | Review

Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities

verfasst von: Karl Oliver Kagan, Jiri Sonek, Philipp Wagner, Markus Hoopmann

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

First trimester risk assessment for chromosomal abnormalities plays a major role in the contemporary pregnancy care. It has evolved significantly since its introduction in the 1990s, when it essentially consisted of just the nuchal translucency measurement. Today, it involves the measurement of several biophysical and biochemical markers and it is often combined with a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis as a secondary test.

Methods

A search of the Medline and Embase databases was done looking for articles about first trimester aneuploidy screening. We performed a detailed review of the literature to evaluate the screening tests currently available and their respective test performance.

Results

Combined screening for trisomy 21 based on maternal age, fetal NT, and the serum markers free beta-hCG and PAPP-A results in a detection rate of about 90% for a false positive of 3–5%. With the addition of further ultrasound markers, the false positive rate can be roughly halved. Screening based on cfDNA identifies about 99% of the affected fetuses for a false positive rate of 0.1%. However, there is a test failure rate of about 2%. The ideal combination between combined and cfDNA screening is still under discussion. Currently, a contingent screening policy seems most favorable where combined screening is offered for everyone and cfDNA analysis only for those with a borderline risk result after combined screening.

Conclusion

Significant advances in screening for trisomy 21 have been made over the past 2 decades. Contemporary screening policies can detect for more than 95% of affected fetuses for false positive rate of less than 3%.
Literatur
2.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D et al (1992) Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 304:867–869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D et al (1992) Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 304:867–869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Spencer K, Souter V, Tul N et al (1999) A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10–14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:231–237. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13040231.x CrossRefPubMed Spencer K, Souter V, Tul N et al (1999) A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10–14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:231–237. doi:10.​1046/​j.​1469-0705.​1999.​13040231.​x CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Wright D, Spencer K et al (2008) First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 by free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A: impact of maternal and pregnancy characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:493–502. doi:10.1002/uog.5332 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Wright D, Spencer K et al (2008) First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 by free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A: impact of maternal and pregnancy characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:493–502. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​5332 CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright D, Kagan KO, Molina FS et al (2008) A mixture model of nuchal translucency thickness in screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:376–383. doi:10.1002/uog.5299 CrossRefPubMed Wright D, Kagan KO, Molina FS et al (2008) A mixture model of nuchal translucency thickness in screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:376–383. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​5299 CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A et al (2008) Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:618–624. doi:10.1002/uog.5331 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A et al (2008) Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:618–624. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​5331 CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Wright D, Valencia C et al (2008) Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency, fetal heart rate, free-hCG and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Hum Reprod 23:1968–1975. doi:10.1093/humrep/den224 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Wright D, Valencia C et al (2008) Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency, fetal heart rate, free-hCG and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Hum Reprod 23:1968–1975. doi:10.​1093/​humrep/​den224 CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright D, Syngelaki A, Bradbury I et al (2014) First-trimester screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by ultrasound and biochemical testing. Fetal Diagn Ther 35:118–126. doi:10.1159/000357430 CrossRefPubMed Wright D, Syngelaki A, Bradbury I et al (2014) First-trimester screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by ultrasound and biochemical testing. Fetal Diagn Ther 35:118–126. doi:10.​1159/​000357430 CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Valencia C, Livanos P et al (2009) Tricuspid regurgitation in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:18–22. doi:10.1002/uog.6264 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Valencia C, Livanos P et al (2009) Tricuspid regurgitation in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:18–22. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​6264 CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Cicero S, Staboulidou I et al (2009) Fetal nasal bone in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11–13 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:259–264. doi:10.1002/uog.6318 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Cicero S, Staboulidou I et al (2009) Fetal nasal bone in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11–13 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:259–264. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​6318 CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Maiz N, Wright D, Ferreira AFA et al (2012) A mixture model of ductus venosus pulsatility index in screening for aneuploidies at 11–13 weeks gestation. Fetal Diagn Ther 31:221–229. doi:10.1159/000337322 CrossRefPubMed Maiz N, Wright D, Ferreira AFA et al (2012) A mixture model of ductus venosus pulsatility index in screening for aneuploidies at 11–13 weeks gestation. Fetal Diagn Ther 31:221–229. doi:10.​1159/​000337322 CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Abele H, Wagner P, Sonek J et al (2015) First trimester ultrasound screening for Down syndrome based on maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency and different combinations of the additional markers nasal bone, tricuspid and ductus venosus flow. Prenat Diagn 35:1182–1186. doi:10.1002/pd.4664 CrossRefPubMed Abele H, Wagner P, Sonek J et al (2015) First trimester ultrasound screening for Down syndrome based on maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency and different combinations of the additional markers nasal bone, tricuspid and ductus venosus flow. Prenat Diagn 35:1182–1186. doi:10.​1002/​pd.​4664 CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Abele H et al (2012) First-trimester combined screening for trisomy 21 with different combinations of placental growth factor, free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40:530–535. doi:10.1002/uog.11173 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Abele H et al (2012) First-trimester combined screening for trisomy 21 with different combinations of placental growth factor, free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40:530–535. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​11173 CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Jørgensen FS et al (2015) The Danish fetal medicine database: establishment, organization and quality assessment of the first trimester screening program for trisomy 21 in Denmark 2008–2012. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94:577–583. doi:10.1111/aogs.12581 CrossRefPubMed Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Jørgensen FS et al (2015) The Danish fetal medicine database: establishment, organization and quality assessment of the first trimester screening program for trisomy 21 in Denmark 2008–2012. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94:577–583. doi:10.​1111/​aogs.​12581 CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Santorum M, Wright D, Syngelaki A et al (2016) Accuracy of first trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17283 Santorum M, Wright D, Syngelaki A et al (2016) Accuracy of first trimester combined test in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17283
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Kagan KO, Wright D, Etchegaray A et al (2009) Effect of deviation of nuchal translucency measurements on the performance of screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:657–664. doi:10.1002/uog.6370 CrossRefPubMed Kagan KO, Wright D, Etchegaray A et al (2009) Effect of deviation of nuchal translucency measurements on the performance of screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:657–664. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​6370 CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Abele H, Wagner N, Hoopmann M et al (2010) Effect of deviation from the mid-sagittal plane on the measurement of fetal nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:525–529. doi:10.1002/uog.7599 CrossRefPubMed Abele H, Wagner N, Hoopmann M et al (2010) Effect of deviation from the mid-sagittal plane on the measurement of fetal nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:525–529. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​7599 CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Baer RJ, Norton ME, Shaw GM et al (2014) Risk of selected structural abnormalities in infants after increased nuchal translucency measurement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211(675):e1–e19. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.025 Baer RJ, Norton ME, Shaw GM et al (2014) Risk of selected structural abnormalities in infants after increased nuchal translucency measurement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211(675):e1–e19. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ajog.​2014.​06.​025
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Merz E, Thode C, Eiben B et al (2011) Individualized correction for maternal weight in calculating the risk of chromosomal abnormalities with first-trimester screening data. Ultraschall Med 32:33–39. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1246001 CrossRefPubMed Merz E, Thode C, Eiben B et al (2011) Individualized correction for maternal weight in calculating the risk of chromosomal abnormalities with first-trimester screening data. Ultraschall Med 32:33–39. doi:10.​1055/​s-0029-1246001 CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright D, Bradbury I, Malone F et al (2010) Cross-trimester repeated measures testing for Down’s syndrome screening: an assessment. Health Technol Assess 14:1–80. doi:10.3310/hta14330 CrossRef Wright D, Bradbury I, Malone F et al (2010) Cross-trimester repeated measures testing for Down’s syndrome screening: an assessment. Health Technol Assess 14:1–80. doi:10.​3310/​hta14330 CrossRef
28.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Pandya P, Wright D, Syngelaki A et al (2012) Maternal serum placental growth factor in prospective screening for aneuploidies at 8–13 weeks’ gestation. Fetal Diagn Ther 31:87–93. doi:10.1159/000335684 CrossRefPubMed Pandya P, Wright D, Syngelaki A et al (2012) Maternal serum placental growth factor in prospective screening for aneuploidies at 8–13 weeks’ gestation. Fetal Diagn Ther 31:87–93. doi:10.​1159/​000335684 CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B et al (2017) Analysis of cell-free dna in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17484 PubMed Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B et al (2017) Analysis of cell-free dna in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17484 PubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon LCY et al (2013) Fetal fraction in maternal plasma cell-free DNA at 11–13 weeks’ gestation: relation to maternal and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:26–32. doi:10.1002/uog.12331 CrossRefPubMed Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon LCY et al (2013) Fetal fraction in maternal plasma cell-free DNA at 11–13 weeks’ gestation: relation to maternal and fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:26–32. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​12331 CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Revello R, Sarno L, Ispas A et al (2016) Screening for trisomies by cell-free DNA testing of maternal blood: consequences of a failed result. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:698–704. doi:10.1002/uog.15851 CrossRefPubMed Revello R, Sarno L, Ispas A et al (2016) Screening for trisomies by cell-free DNA testing of maternal blood: consequences of a failed result. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:698–704. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​15851 CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Wagner P, Sonek J, Hoopmann M et al (2016) First-trimester screening for trisomies 18 and 13, triploidy and Turner syndrome by detailed early anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:446–451. doi:10.1002/uog.15829 CrossRefPubMed Wagner P, Sonek J, Hoopmann M et al (2016) First-trimester screening for trisomies 18 and 13, triploidy and Turner syndrome by detailed early anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:446–451. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​15829 CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Grati FR, Kagan KO (2016) No test result rate of cfDNA analysis and its influence on test performance metrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17330 Grati FR, Kagan KO (2016) No test result rate of cfDNA analysis and its influence on test performance metrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17330
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F et al (2017) ISUOG updated consensus statement on the impact of cfDNA aneuploidy testing on screening policies and prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:815–816. doi:10.1002/uog.17483 CrossRefPubMed Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F et al (2017) ISUOG updated consensus statement on the impact of cfDNA aneuploidy testing on screening policies and prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:815–816. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17483 CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Nicolaides KH, Wright D, Poon LC et al (2013) First-trimester contingent screening for trisomy 21 by biomarkers and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42:41–50. doi:10.1002/uog.12511 CrossRefPubMed Nicolaides KH, Wright D, Poon LC et al (2013) First-trimester contingent screening for trisomy 21 by biomarkers and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42:41–50. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​12511 CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright D, Bradbury I, Benn P et al (2004) Contingent screening for Down syndrome is an efficient alternative to non-disclosure sequential screening. Prenat Diagn 24:762–766. doi:10.1002/pd.974 CrossRefPubMed Wright D, Bradbury I, Benn P et al (2004) Contingent screening for Down syndrome is an efficient alternative to non-disclosure sequential screening. Prenat Diagn 24:762–766. doi:10.​1002/​pd.​974 CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Beulen L, Faas BHW, Feenstra I et al (2016) The clinical utility of non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17228 Beulen L, Faas BHW, Feenstra I et al (2016) The clinical utility of non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17228
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Grande M, Jansen FAR, Blumenfeld YJ et al (2015) Genomic microarray in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and normal karyotype: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46:650–658. doi:10.1002/uog.14880 CrossRefPubMed Grande M, Jansen FAR, Blumenfeld YJ et al (2015) Genomic microarray in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and normal karyotype: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46:650–658. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​14880 CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LCP et al (2014) Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:139–146. doi:10.1002/uog.12575 CrossRefPubMed de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LCP et al (2014) Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:139–146. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​12575 CrossRefPubMed
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Maya I, Yacobson S, Kahana S et al (2017) The cut-off value for normal nuchal translucency evaluated by chromosomal microarray analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17421 Maya I, Yacobson S, Kahana S et al (2017) The cut-off value for normal nuchal translucency evaluated by chromosomal microarray analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17421
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Syngelaki A, Guerra L, Ceccacci I et al (2016) Impact of holoprosencephaly, exomphalos, megacystis and high NT in first trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17286 Syngelaki A, Guerra L, Ceccacci I et al (2016) Impact of holoprosencephaly, exomphalos, megacystis and high NT in first trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17286
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Wapner RJ, Babiarz JE, Levy B et al (2015) Expanding the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing: detection of fetal microdeletion syndromes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(332):e1–e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.041 Wapner RJ, Babiarz JE, Levy B et al (2015) Expanding the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing: detection of fetal microdeletion syndromes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(332):e1–e9. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ajog.​2014.​11.​041
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Grati FR, Molina Gomes D, Ferreira JCPB et al (2015) Prevalence of recurrent pathogenic microdeletions and microduplications in over 9500 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 35:801–809. doi:10.1002/pd.4613 CrossRefPubMed Grati FR, Molina Gomes D, Ferreira JCPB et al (2015) Prevalence of recurrent pathogenic microdeletions and microduplications in over 9500 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 35:801–809. doi:10.​1002/​pd.​4613 CrossRefPubMed
51.
52.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Gorman N, Wright D, Poon LC et al (2017) Accuracy of competing risks model in screening for pre-eclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17399 O’Gorman N, Wright D, Poon LC et al (2017) Accuracy of competing risks model in screening for pre-eclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17399
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Kenkhuis MJA, Bakker M, Bardi F et al (2017) Yield of a 12–13 week scan for the early diagnosis of fetal congenital anomalies in the cell-free DNA era. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.17487 PubMed Kenkhuis MJA, Bakker M, Bardi F et al (2017) Yield of a 12–13 week scan for the early diagnosis of fetal congenital anomalies in the cell-free DNA era. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.​1002/​uog.​17487 PubMed
55.
Metadaten
Titel
Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities
verfasst von
Karl Oliver Kagan
Jiri Sonek
Philipp Wagner
Markus Hoopmann
Publikationsdatum
12.07.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4459-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.