Importance of a detailed anomaly scan after a cfDNA test indicating fetal trisomy 21, 18 or 13.
Fetal defects
NIPT
Trisomy
Ultrasound examination
cfDNA
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Dec 2023
13 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
22
10
2023
accepted:
15
11
2023
medline:
13
12
2023
pubmed:
13
12
2023
entrez:
13
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To investigate the effect of the presence or absence of fetal anomalies and soft markers diagnosed by ultrasound on positive predictive value (PPV) 21, 18 and 13 in pregnancies with a high-risk cfDNA result. Retrospective study including singleton pregnancies with high-risk NIPT results for common trisomies followed by invasive testing. The cases were grouped by gestational age at the time of invasive testing and by the presence or absence of fetal abnormalities or soft markers. The ultrasound was considered abnormal if at least one major defect or a soft marker was detected. A total of 173 women were included. Median maternal and gestational age was 37.7 years and 14.0 weeks, respectively. CfDNA test result showed high-risk for trisomy 21 and trisomy 18 or 13 in 119 and 54 cases, respectively. The "pre-ultrasound" PPV for trisomy 21 and for trisomy 18 or 13 were 98.3% and 68.4%, respectively. In case of a high-risk result for trisomy 21 and no fetal anomalies, the PPV was 86.7% while it was 100% if there were anomalies or markers present. In the case of a high-risk result for trisomy 18 or 13, the PPV was 9.5% if the ultrasound examination was normal and 100% if the ultrasound examination was abnormal. This study suggests that a detailed ultrasound examination performed after a cfDNA result that is high-risk for one of the common autosomal trisomies adds significantly to establishing an individualized risk assessment. This is particularly true in cases with a high-risk result for trisomies 18 or 13.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38091054
doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07311-2
pii: 10.1007/s00404-023-07311-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Kagan KO, Sonek J, Kozlowski P (2022) Antenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Arch Gynecol Obstet 305(4):825–835
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06477-5
pubmed: 35279726
pmcid: 8967741
Rose NC, Barrie ES, Malinowski J, Jenkins GP, McClain MR, LaGrave D et al (2022) Systematic evidence-based review: the application of noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA in general-risk pregnancies. Genet Med 24(7):1379–1391
doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.019
pubmed: 35608568
Wagner P, Sonek J, Hoopmann M, Abele H, Kagan KO (2016) First-trimester screening for trisomies 18 and 13, triploidy and Turner syndrome by detailed early anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48(4):446–451
doi: 10.1002/uog.15829
pubmed: 26611869
Moran CJ, Tay JB, Morrison JJ (2002) Ultrasound detection and perinatal outcome of fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in the absence of a routine fetal anomaly scan or biochemical screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20(5):482–485
doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00833.x
pubmed: 12423486
Cho RC, Chu P, Smith-Bindman R (2009) Second trimester prenatal ultrasound for the detection of pregnancies at increased risk of Trisomy 18 based on serum screening. Prenat Diagn 29(2):129–139
doi: 10.1002/pd.2166
pubmed: 19142904
Agathokleous M, Chaveeva P, Poon LCY, Kosinski P, Nicolaides KH (2013) Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(3):247–261
doi: 10.1002/uog.12364
pubmed: 23208748
Abele H, Wagner P, Sonek J, Hoopmann M, Brucker S, Artunc-Ulkumen B 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(12):1182–1186
doi: 10.1002/pd.4664
pubmed: 26223508
Prodan NC, Wiechers C, Geipel A, Walter A, Siegmann HJ, Kozlowski P et al (2022) Universal cell free DNA or contingent screening for Trisomy 21: does it make a difference? A comparative study with real data. Fetal Diagn Ther 49(3):85–94
doi: 10.1159/000523738
pubmed: 35339997
Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Pfaff T, Prodan N, Wagner P, Schmid M et al (2020) First trimester screening for common trisomies and microdeletion 22q11.2 syndrome using cell-free DNA: a prospective clinical study. Fetal Diagn Ther 47(11):841–852
doi: 10.1159/000510069
pubmed: 32877902
Kagan KO, Sonek J, Sroka A, Abele H, Wagner P, Prodan N et al (2019) False-positive rates in screening for trisomies 18 and 13: a comparison between first-trimester combined screening and a cfDNA-based approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299(2):431–437
doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4983-2
pubmed: 30519751
Kagan KO, Wagner P, Hoopmann M, Abele H (2019) First trimester screening based on ultrasound and cfDNA vs. first-trimester combined screening with additional ultrasound markers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 234:e17
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.186
Kagan KO, Maier V, Sonek J, Abele H, Lüthgens K, Schmid M et al (2018) False-positive rate in first-trimester screening based on ultrasound and cell-free DNA versus first-trimester combined screening with additional ultrasound markers. Fetal Diagn Ther 45(5):317–324
doi: 10.1159/000489121
pubmed: 29940565
Kagan KO, Sroka F, Sonek J, Abele H, Lüthgens K, Schmid M et al (2018) First-trimester risk assessment based on ultrasound and cell-free DNA vs combined screening: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(4):437–444
doi: 10.1002/uog.18905
pubmed: 28925570
Bilardo CM, Chaoui R, Hyett JA, Kagan KO, Karim JN, Papageorghiou AT, Poon LC, Salomon LJ, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH (2023) ISUOG practice guidelines (updated): performance of 11–14-week ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 61(1):127–143
doi: 10.1002/uog.26106
pubmed: 36594739
Kozlowski P, Burkhardt T, Gembruch U, Gonser M, Kähler C, Kagan KO et al (2019) DEGUM, ÖGUM, SGUM and FMF Germany recommendations for the implementation of first-trimester screening, detailed ultrasound, cell-free DNA screening and diagnostic procedures. Ultraschall Der Medizin Eur J Ultrasound 40(02):176–193
doi: 10.1055/a-0631-8898
von Kaisenberg C, Chaoui R, Häusler M, Kagan K, Kozlowski P, Merz E et al (2016) Quality requirements for the early fetal ultrasound assessment at 11–13+6 weeks of gestation (DEGUM levels II and III). Ultraschall in der Medizin Eur J Ultrasound 37(03):297–302
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-105514
Merz E, Eichhorn KH, von Kaisenberg C, Schramm T, der Degum-Stufe III A (2012) Updated quality requirements regarding secondary differentiated ultrasound examination in prenatal diagnostics (= DEGUM level II) in the period from 18 + 0 to 21 + 6 weeks of gestation. Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980) 33(6):593–596
pubmed: 23147272
Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z, Gynaecologists the RC of O and (2022) Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. BGOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 129(1):e1-15
Okoror CEM, Arora S (2023) Prenatal diagnosis after high chance non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis?—experience at a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 19:100211
pubmed: 37456970
pmcid: 10345242
Kagan KO, Rosenberg R (2023) Wegweiser auffälliger NIPT. Ultraschall Med (Stuttg, Ger : 1980)
Hui L, Ellis K, Mayen D, Pertile MD, Reimers R, Sun L et al (2023) Position statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis on the use of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of fetal chromosomal conditions in singleton pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 43(7):814–828
doi: 10.1002/pd.6357
pubmed: 37076973
Scott F, Smet M-E, Elhindi J, Mogra R, Sunderland L, Ferreira A et al (2023) Late first-trimester ultrasound findings can alter management after high-risk NIPT result. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 62(4):497–503
doi: 10.1002/uog.26272
pubmed: 37247395
Zhen L, Li YJ, Yang YD, Li DZ (2019) The role of ultrasound in women with a positive NIPT result for trisomy 18 and 13. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 58(6):798–800
doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.09.012
pubmed: 31759530
Lüthgens K, Häbig K, Sonek J, Kagan KO (2023) Screen-positive rate in cell free DNA screening for trisomy 21. Prenat Diagn 43:1536–1543
doi: 10.1002/pd.6448
pubmed: 37789581
Lüthgens K, Sinzel M, Kolar M, Kagan KO (2023) Screen-positive rate in cell-free DNA screening for microdeletion 22q11.2. Prenat Diagn 43(3):288–293
doi: 10.1002/pd.6328
pubmed: 36738442
Wright D, Wright A, Nicolaides KH (2015) A unified approach to risk assessment for fetal aneuploidies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45(1):48–54
doi: 10.1002/uog.14694
pubmed: 25315809
Kagan K, Tercanli S, Hoopmann M (2021) Ten reasons why we should not abandon a detailed first trimester anomaly scan. Ultraschall Der Medizin Eur J Ultrasound 42(05):451–459
doi: 10.1055/a-1528-1118
Bardi F, Kagan KO, Bilardo CM (2023) First-trimester screening strategies: a balance between costs, efficiency and diagnostic yield. Prenat Diagn 43:865–872
doi: 10.1002/pd.6393
pubmed: 37277893
Maya I, Sheelo LS, Brabbing-Goldstein D, Matar R, Kahana S, Agmon-Fishman I et al (2022) Residual risk for clinically significant copy number variants in low-risk pregnancies, following exclusion of noninvasive prenatal screening–detectable findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 226(4):562.e1-562.e8
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.016
pubmed: 34762861
Galeva S, Gil MM, Konstantinidou L, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH (2019) First-trimester screening for trisomies by cfDNA testing of maternal blood in singleton and twin pregnancies: factors affecting test failure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53(6):804–809
doi: 10.1002/uog.20290
pubmed: 30977206