Performance of Common Down Syndrome Screening Methods Used in India with Construction of an Indian Normogram for Nuchal Translucency/Crown-Rump Length Measurements in 14,337 Subjects.
Antenatal screening
Combined first trimester screening
Down syndrome
NT normogram
Nuchal translucency
Journal
Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India
ISSN: 0971-9202
Titre abrégé: J Obstet Gynaecol India
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0374763
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
02
05
2018
accepted:
08
12
2018
entrez:
6
11
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
7
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sonologists often lack access to the Fetal Medicine Foundation Down syndrome risk calculation software or cannot offer the combined test for aneuploidy screening because of resource constraints. Instead, sonologists use nuchal translucency (NT) measurements that rely on fixed NT cut-offs for labelling foetuses with high risks for Down syndrome. In the present study, we aimed to plot normative data for NT and the crown-rump length (CRL) in Indian foetuses and to assess the value of using the 95th/99th centiles of NT for CRL cut-offs instead of fixed NT cut-offs to calculate the risk for aneuploidies during the first trimester. We conducted a retrospective observational study measuring the NT/CRL in 14,337 Indian foetuses between 11 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. We used regression analysis and calculated the 95th/99th centiles of NT distribution. We compared performances of NT > 95th/99th centiles and fixed NT cut-offs of 2.5- and 3.5-mm as screening. The NT measurements increased with increasing CRL values. NT > 95th centile for a particular CRL for detecting all aneuploidies had the maximum sensitivity of 73.9% for a false positive rate (FPR) of 4.3%. Similar values for fixed cut-off > 2.5 mm were 63.0% FPR 3.7% (T21 68.2 FPR 3.8%) and for NT > 3.5 mm 36.9% FPR 0.43% (T21 36.5% FPR 0.5%). A fixed NT cut-off point is not appropriate for the first trimester screening. The best sensitivity for assessing aneuploidies is achieved using the 95th centile, but the 99th centile achieves higher specificity for gestational age.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF STUDY
UNASSIGNED
Sonologists often lack access to the Fetal Medicine Foundation Down syndrome risk calculation software or cannot offer the combined test for aneuploidy screening because of resource constraints. Instead, sonologists use nuchal translucency (NT) measurements that rely on fixed NT cut-offs for labelling foetuses with high risks for Down syndrome. In the present study, we aimed to plot normative data for NT and the crown-rump length (CRL) in Indian foetuses and to assess the value of using the 95th/99th centiles of NT for CRL cut-offs instead of fixed NT cut-offs to calculate the risk for aneuploidies during the first trimester.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective observational study measuring the NT/CRL in 14,337 Indian foetuses between 11 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. We used regression analysis and calculated the 95th/99th centiles of NT distribution. We compared performances of NT > 95th/99th centiles and fixed NT cut-offs of 2.5- and 3.5-mm as screening.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The NT measurements increased with increasing CRL values. NT > 95th centile for a particular CRL for detecting all aneuploidies had the maximum sensitivity of 73.9% for a false positive rate (FPR) of 4.3%. Similar values for fixed cut-off > 2.5 mm were 63.0% FPR 3.7% (T21 68.2 FPR 3.8%) and for NT > 3.5 mm 36.9% FPR 0.43% (T21 36.5% FPR 0.5%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A fixed NT cut-off point is not appropriate for the first trimester screening. The best sensitivity for assessing aneuploidies is achieved using the 95th centile, but the 99th centile achieves higher specificity for gestational age.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31686747
doi: 10.1007/s13224-018-1196-3
pii: 1196
pmc: PMC6801244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
142-146Informations de copyright
© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interestAnita Kaul and Prathima Radhakrishnan declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Sao Paulo Med J. 2001 Jan 4;119(1):19-23
pubmed: 11175621
Indian Pediatr. 2013 Dec;50(12):1125-30
pubmed: 23798638
BMJ. 1992 Apr 4;304(6831):867-9
pubmed: 1392745
Prenat Diagn. 2002 Mar;22(3):211-5
pubmed: 11920896
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;12(3):156-62
pubmed: 9793186
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jun;11(6):401-6
pubmed: 9674085
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Apr;137(1):14-19
pubmed: 28099747
Prenat Diagn. 1998 Jan;18(1):29-34
pubmed: 9483637
Prenat Diagn. 2005 Jun;25(6):465-9
pubmed: 15966036
BJOG. 2001 Oct;108(10):1047-52
pubmed: 11702836
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Sep;101(9):782-6
pubmed: 7947527
J Korean Med Sci. 2006 Feb;21(1):11-4
pubmed: 16479057
Med J Aust. 1996 Oct 7;165(7):365-8
pubmed: 8890842
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jun;11(6):391-400
pubmed: 9674084
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 15;3:CD012600
pubmed: 28295158