First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters.METHODS: Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement of alpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency).RESULTS: First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening.CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection of Down's syndrome, with low false positive rates

First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's Syndrome

BACKGROUND It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters. METHODS Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement ofalpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency). RESULTS First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening. CONCLUSIONS First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection ofDown's syndrome, with low false positive rates

Second trimester levels of maternal serum total total activin A and placental inhibin/activin a and ßA subunit messenger ribonucleic acids in Down syndrome pregnancy.

Objectives: Previous data have shown that inhibin A (alpha/betaA) is increased about twofold in maternal serum samples from Down syndrome pregnancy. Our objectives were to determine whether activin A (betaA/betaA) was similarly increased in maternal serum from pregnancies affected with fetal Down syndrome, and to investigate whether increased expression of each inhibin/activin subunit occurred in placental tissue from cases of fetal Down syndrome. Design and methods: Maternal serum total activin A levels were measured in 20 cases of fetal Down syndrome and 100 unaffected pregnancy samples. In addition, analysis of inhibin/activin alpha and betaA subunit mRNA levels was performed in placental tissue extracts from six cases of fetal Down syndrome and six tissues with a normal karyotype. Results: The median total activin A level in the Down syndrome cases was 0.82 MoM (multiples of the median); values did not differ significantly (P = 0.36, Mann-Whitney U analysis) from those in unaffected pregnancies. The inhibin alpha subunit/GAPDH mRNA ratio, but not that of betaA subunit/GAPDH mRNA, was significantly greater (P < 0.01, ANOVA) in placental tissue from Down syndrome than in control placental tissue. Conclusions: Unlike inhibin A, activin A is not significantly increased in Down syndrome relative to unaffected pregnancy. Furthermore, increased amounts of maternal serum inhibin A in Down syndrome pregnancy probably result from increased placental expression of inhibin alpha, but not betaA, subunit

Total activin A in maternal blood as a marker of preterm delivery in low-risk asymptomatic patients

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate whether increased serum levels of total activin A (t-activin A) are found in women who subsequently experience preterm delivery (PTD). METHODS: Data on maternal serum t-activin A concentrations were available from a total of 84 singleton pregnant women and included 14 PTD pregnancies, each matched for gestational age and length of freezer storage, with 5 control pregnancies having term delivery (TD). Analyte values were expressed as multiple(s) of the control median. RESULTS: The median t-activin A for controls and cases was 1.00 +/- 0.45 and 1.27 +/- 0.53 MoM, respectively. Univariate analysis of the MoM values was performed using the Kaplan-Meier algorithm. Differences in the rate of delivery using a t-activin A MoM cut-off of > or = 1 SD (equivalent to 1.26 MoM) were analysed using the log rank test. The cumulative rate of PTD (< 37 weeks) was significantly higher for women with t-activin A concentrations > or = 1.26 MoM than those with t-activin A concentrations below this cut-off (40% vs.. 10%, p-value = 0.0218 log rank test). CONCLUSIONS: T-activin A concentration is higher in women who will develop PTD in a low-risk population. T-activin A values are inversely proportional to the time elapsed from blood test to delivery. Prospective studies would determine the precise discriminability of this marker for PTD and the best week for performing the blood test, allowing for a proper calculation of the detection rate and a positive predictive value

Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access