Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2017  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1575--1578

Accuracy of ultrasonography compared to laboratory in fetal screening, which one is more reliable?


Rasekhjahromi Athar1, Davari Nazanin2, Zarei Babaarabi Zahra1, Damshenas Mohammad Hasan3,  
1 Women's Health and Disease Research Center, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran
3 Critical Care and Pain Management Research Center, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Davari Nazanin
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Motahari St., Jahrom
Iran

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of nuchal translucency (NT) measurement with laboratory screening tests in prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS) and neonatal outcomes. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional-descriptive study, data were collected from 260 pregnancy files. Ages of pregnant women were 20–34 year old who referred for prenatal care. NT was measured by ultrasound at 11–13 + 6 and quad marker tests at 15–18 gestational week. Data analysis was performed by SPSS 21 (IBM, USA) that was considered significant with < 0.05. Result: Two-hundred and twenty-one pregnant women with average age of 26.6 ± 4.44 years were screened. Frequency of negative screening tests for DS was 188 pregnant women (88.7%) and 24 (11.3%) of them positive. Amniocentesis was performed for those who had positive screening test, but their NT measurement was <3.5 mm. All reports of amniocentesis were negative which was consistent with fetal NT ultrasonography reports, and all neonatal outcomes were normal after delivery follow-up. Conclusion: NT measurement and quad marker test cannot accurately predict the fetal health in the future; however, NT is more reliable than laboratory screening tests because it is more consistent with the results of amniocentesis. NT is also a safer and cheaper method than amniocentesis. Pregnant women tolerate an unfavorable psychological stress and high cost during amniocentesis. The suggested option is to assess the cell-free fetal DNA in pregnant blood instead of amniocentesis.



How to cite this article:
Athar R, Nazanin D, Zahra ZB, Hasan DM. Accuracy of ultrasonography compared to laboratory in fetal screening, which one is more reliable?.Ann Trop Med Public Health 2017;10:1575-1578


How to cite this URL:
Athar R, Nazanin D, Zahra ZB, Hasan DM. Accuracy of ultrasonography compared to laboratory in fetal screening, which one is more reliable?. Ann Trop Med Public Health [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Jun 26 ];10:1575-1578
Available from: http://www.atmph.org/text.asp?2017/10/6/1575/222675


Full Text



 Introduction



Down syndrome (DS) is the most commonly identified genetic form of mental retardation and the leading cause of specific birth defects and medical conditions.[1]

DS occurs in approximately 1 in every 800 live births. The risk of a fetus exhibiting DS increases with maternal age. It has been proved that a number of maternal serum markers are useful in screening of DS.[2],[3] Recent advances in screening have enabled the patients to be informed about the risk at a much earlier stage of pregnancy than has previously been possible.[3],[4],[5],[6] The identification of DS during the first trimester offers significant advantages to the patients and clinicians, including greater privacy and easier and safer termination, if necessary.[7] The nuchal translucency scan (NT scan) uses ultrasound to help to identify higher chances for chromosomal conditions including DS in a fetus, particularly for high-risk women.[2] The NT scan is performed between 11.5 and 13 weeks and 6 days of gestation. As the ultrasound technology improved, the ability to provide more detailed fetal imaging and the differentiation of normal from pathologic NT structures became possible. First-trimester choices for screening include sonographic measurement of NT, serum screening of beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) levels, and a combination of both serum and sonographic screening. Second-trimester choices include the quad test incorporating maternal serum AFP, β-hCG, unconjugated estriol, and diametric inhibin-A.[8],[9] Quad screening produces better results than triple screening; it has both lower false-positive rates and higher detection rates.[8] It can be performed between 15 and 22 weeks of gestation. There are lots of evidence states that screening tests, sonographies, and also amniocentesis are more efficient and more valuable if they are used in the first trimester. Amniocentesis is the most extensively used fetal sampling technique for detection of chromosome abnormalities.[10] The aim of this study was to detect the association between NT and neonatal outcome and the efficacy of NT measurement compared with laboratory screening tests in prenatal diagnosis of DS.

 Materials and Methods



Study protocol was clarified, process of the study was explained to participants, and written consent was obtained from them. In this cross-sectional-descriptive study, data were gathered from 260 pregnancy files in Dr. Rasekh's clinic during 2013–2014 in Jahrom, Iran.

The study group was aged between 20–38 years, and these women were referred for prenatal care. The study group was selected based on following characteristics: age, residence, education level, number of children, and no underlying medical disease.

Because of the incomplete information and also unwillingness of the patients to cooperate, 48 individuals were excluded from the study.

Did you mean: [INSIDE:1]

Finally a total number of 212 patient files were stuudied

A total of ultimately 212 patient's files were studied. NT was measured by ultrasound at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Quad marker test was performed at 15–18 weeks of gestation.

A fetal NT value of >3.5 was considered as DS.[1] The quad marker test was performed by two accredited laboratories in Jahrom, Iran. The cutoff risk calculated for trisomy 21 was 1:250. It is expected that out of 250 women with similar results, one will have a trisomy 21 pregnancy and 249 will have a normal pregnancy. The doctors state that the screening tests cannot detect 100% of fetuses with DS. Maternal screenings will have some level of inherent false-negative and false-positive results, so they are not a good substitute for diagnostic tests. This finding is based on clinical information obtained from patients. Data management and analysis were performed using SPSS 21 (IBM, USA). Cases with P Screening test's results

The frequency of negative and positive screening tests for DS was 188 persons (88.7%) and 24 persons (11.3%), respectively [Table 1]. Only 25% (six patients) of pregnant women with a positive screening test did amniocentesis.{Table 1}

Consequently, the result of amniocentesis was normal in all, without any cytogenetic abnormalities. All neonates also were normal at follow-up.

The remaining study groups were followed up by ultrasound and gave birth to normal neonates with a mean NT of 1.7 (maximum: 2.1 and minimum: 1.4), and the mean of apgar scores at birth was 9.

There was no association between the positive quadruple screening test and the birth of a neonate with DS (P = 0.06) [Table 2].{Table 2}

Ultrasound's results

All NTs obtained by ultrasound were <3.5 (maximum: 2.8 and minimum: 1.2), and all the fetuses were born without any abnormality [Table 2].

The lowest percentages of the positive screening test results were found in patients who were 19–25 years (3%), and the highest percentage was in patients who had 35–40 years (71.4%). In this study, the largest age group was 25–35 year old.

The relation between the increased maternal age and a positive quadruple screening was considerable (P = 0.005) [Table 3] and [Table 4].{Table 3}{Table 4}

 Discussion



This is a hypothesis that the study group who has a normal NT screening test will have a normal neonate, and the group with abnormal screening test will not certainly have an abnormal neonate.

The cause of DS in neonates is meiotic nondisjunction of the 21st pair of chromosomes. Birth of a neonate with DS must be decreased by prevention and appropriate follow-up. In the present study, no significant association was found between positive quad screening test results and the birth of a neonate with DS or neonatal outcome, but NT by specificity of 100% was a great help to distinguish normal embryos, and it was more reliable than other identification tests. It is noteworthy that an expert sonographer also has an important role in measurement of NT.

The results of previous studies showed that false-positive rates in ultrasound and quad marker screening test were 5.4% and 6.2%, respectively, and their detection rates were similar to each other (94.6% for ultrasound and 94.8% for quad marker screening).[7] Recent studies have confirmed the efficacy of combined first-trimester screening for DS based on maternal age, serum marker (hCG and PAPP-A), and ultrasound measurement of fetal NT.[11],[12] A previous study showed that a routine first-trimester NT measurement is effective for screening of fetal chromosomal abnormalities.[12],[13]

Another studies have shown that the noninvasive prenatal tests would have missed a significant anomaly which would have been detected by ultrasound and NT.[14]

In the present study, we found no significant relation between positive screening tests and the birth of neonates with DS, but NT is more reliable than laboratory screening tests.

Most false-positive results of the tests lead to pregnancy loss; however, there was no certain fetal abnormality. In two cases, the mothers with a positive quad marker test result agreed to do amniocentesis. During amniocentesis, rupture of membranous was happened, and the fetuses died after birth due to prematurity, while the amniocentesis report was normal chromosomes.

Pregnancy loss is one of the side effects of amniocentesis,[15],[16] but false-positive results of laboratory reports in some cases lead to amniocentesis which could be resulted in abortion of normal fetuses.

Access to result of the amniocentesis has a long process which takes about 3–4 weeks. Waiting for this long time leads the mothers to a higher stress. On the other hand, amniocentesis is associated with a high cost and it is hard for some to afford it.

Laboratory's weak points should be found and resolved to minimize the faults which can help pregnant women not to experience invasive and expensive intervention methods such as amniocentesis improvements in fetal screening test resulted in lower laboratory errors. NT measurement in the first-trimester ultrasound markers, first-trimester serum markers, and combinations of these screens are addressed.[13]

We should say that it is better to recognized a more accurate and reliable screening test to detect trisomy.

Cell-free fetal DNA testing is a new screening test, which indicates high-risks women who are likely to have a fetus with DS (trisomy 21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18), and Patau syndrome (trisomy 13).

In this test, blood sample of the women is taken after 10 weeks of pregnancy, and the relative amount of free fetal DNA in the mother's blood is measured, and this test determines the risk of having a fetus with DS, Edward syndrome, and Patau syndrome based on the relative amount of DNA from chromosomes 21, 18, and 13.[17]

The results are usually available within 2 weeks of the blood draw. Cell-free fetal DNA testing is regarded to detect >99% of all DS pregnancies and 98% of all trisomy 18 pregnancies. It detects about 65% of all trisomy 13 pregnancies.

The latest researches have shown that cfDNA testing for trisomy 21 has a higher sensitivity and positive predictive value and a lower false-positive rate comparing with standard screening by the measurement of NT and biochemical analyzes.[18],[19] This method can substantially reduce the need of invasive diagnostic procedures and attendant procedure-related fetal losses in women with positive screening test and abnormal NT.[20]

CfDNA test is very expensive, and all of the patients are not able to afford it, so insurance companies can significantly contribute to reduce the costs.

In this study, a significant number of positive quad screening tests were found in pregnant women whom were >35 year old. Encouraging women not to be pregnant after the age of 35 and to do required screening tests can leads to a lower incidence of DS.

 Conclusion



This research states that NT screening and quad marker test cannot accurately predict the status of the fetus in the future. Further study with an increased sample size can help to evaluate the specificity of the quad screening test. In comparison to the other screening tests, cell-free fetal DNA testing is a safer and more effective test to detect DS. Its further advantages are mentioned in following sentences. One of the benefits of this test is a faster access to the result, and it is also a noninvasive method. It results in reduction of trauma to the both mother and fetus, and it also decreases psychological damage to the mother.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Dr. Hooshmand for his insightful comments and encouragement.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Sherman SL, Allen EG, Bean LH, Freeman SB. Epidemiology of Down syndrome. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2007;13:221-7.
2Atzei A, Gajewska K, Huggon IC, Allan L, Nicolaides KH. Relationship between nuchal translucency thickness and prevalence of major cardiac defects in fetuses with normal karyotype. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2006;61:8-10.
3Orlandi F, Rossi C, Orlandi E, Jakil MC, Hallahan TW, Macri VJ, et al. First-trimester screening for trisomy-21 using a simplified method to assess the presence or absence of the fetal nasal bone. J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1107-11.
4Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH. First and second trimester evaluation of risk. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2001-11.
5Wapner R, Thom E, Simpson JL, Pergament E, Silver R, Filkins K, et al. First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1405-13.
6Krantz DA, Hallahan TW, Orlandi F, Buchanan P, Larsen JW Jr., Macri JN, et al. First-trimester down syndrome screening using dried blood biochemistry and nuchal translucency. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:207-13.
7Krantz DA, Hallahan TW, Macri VJ, Macri JN. Genetic sonography after first-trimester Down syndrome screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:666-70.
8Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Bukowski R, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2001-11.
9Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Nelson DB, Sehdev HM, Macones GA. A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:562-8.
10Ball RH, Caughey AB, Malone FD, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Saade GR, et al. First-and second-trimester evaluation of risk for Down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:10-7.
11Rozenberg P, Bussières L, Chevret S. Screening for Down syndrome using first-trimester combined screening followed by second-trimester ultrasound examination in an unselected population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1379-87.
12Thilaganathan B, Slack A, Wathen NC. Effect of first-trimester nuchal translucency on second-trimester maternal serum biochemical screening for Down's syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:261-4.
13Rosen T, D'Alton ME. Down syndrome screening in the first and second trimesters: What do the data show? Semin Perinatol 2005;29:367-75.
14Lichtenbelt KD, Diemel BD, Koster MP, Manten GT, Siljee J, Schuring-Blom GH, et al. Detection of fetal chromosomal anomalies: Does nuchal translucency measurement have added value in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing? Prenat Diagn 2015;35:663-8.
15Wah YM, Leung TY, Cheng YK, Sahota DS. Procedure-related fetal loss following chorionic villus sampling after first-trimester aneuploidy screening. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017;41:184-90.
16Wulff CB, Gerds TA, Rode L, Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Tabor A, et al. Risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first-trimester screening for Down syndrome: A national cohort of 147,987 singleton pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47:38-44.
17Kagan KO, Wright D, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester contingent screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by fetal nuchal translucency and ductus venosus flow and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:42-7.
18Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97.
19Palomaki GE, Deciu C, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Haddow JE, Neveux LM, et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma reliably identifies trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 as well as Down syndrome: An international collaborative study. Genet Med 2012;14:296-305.
20Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Haddow JE, Neveux LM, Ehrich M, et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: An international clinical validation study. Genet Med 2011;13:913-20.