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

01-10-2017 | Review

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

Authors: Karl Oliver Kagan, Jiri Sonek, Philipp Wagner, Markus Hoopmann

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

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%.
Literature
2.
3.
go back to reference 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.
7.
go back to reference 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.
9.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
12.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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
29.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
50.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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
Metadata
Title
Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities
Authors
Karl Oliver Kagan
Jiri Sonek
Philipp Wagner
Markus Hoopmann
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4459-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2017 Go to the issue