Role of Second-Trimester Genetic Sonography After Down Syndrome Screening

To estimate the effectiveness of second-trimester genetic sonography in modifying Down syndrome screening test results

Modified multiple marker aneuploidy screening as a primary screening test for preeclampsia

Abstract Background Abnormal levels of maternal biochemical markers used in multiple marker aneuploidy screening have been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study aims to assess if a combination of maternal characteristics and biochemical markers in the first and second trimesters can be used to screen for preeclampsia (PE). The secondary aim was to assess this combination in identifying pregnancies at risk for gestational hypertension and preterm birth. Methods This case-control study used information on maternal characteristics and residual blood samples from pregnant women who have undergone multiple marker aneuploidy screening. The median multiple of the median (MoM) of first and second trimester biochemical markers in cases (women with PE, gestational hypertension and preterm birth) and controls were compared. Biochemical markers included pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), placental growth factor (PlGF), human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), alpha feto-protein (AFP), unconjugated estriol (uE3) and Inhibin A. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate screening performance using different marker combinations. Screening performance was defined as detection rate (DR) and false positive rate (FPR). Preterm and early-onset preeclampsia PE were defined as women with PE who delivered at < 37 and < 34 weeks of gestation, respectively. Results There were 147 pregnancies with PE (81 term, 49 preterm and 17 early-onset), 295 with gestational hypertension, and 166 preterm birth. Compared to controls, PE cases had significantly lower median MoM of PAPP-A (0.77 vs 1.10, p < 0.0001), PlGF (0.76 vs 1.01, p < 0.0001) and free-β hCG (0.81 vs. 0.98, p < 0.001) in the first trimester along with PAPP-A (0.82 vs 0.99, p < 0.01) and PlGF (0.75 vs 1.02, p < 0.0001) in the second trimester. The lowest first trimester PAPP-A, PlGF and free β-hCG were seen in those with preterm and early-onset PE. At a 20% FPR, 67% of preterm and 76% of early-onset PE cases can be predicted using a combination of maternal characteristics with PAPP-A and PlGF in the first trimester. The corresponding DR was 58% for gestational hypertension and 36% for preterm birth cases. Conclusions Maternal characteristics with first trimester PAPP-A and PlGF measured for aneuploidy screening provided reasonable accuracy in identifying women at risk of developing early onset PE, allowing triage of high-risk women for further investigation and risk-reducing therapy. This combination was less accurate in predicting women who have gestational hypertension or preterm birth

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