500 likes | 650 Views
Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome: Where Do We Stand Today?. David B. Fox, MD Riverside Methodist Hospital. Mental retardation Cardiac defects Leukemia Alzheimer's. Visual/hearing impairment Intestinal malformations Shortened life span. Down Syndrome Phenotype abnormalities.
E N D
Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome: Where Do We Stand Today? David B. Fox, MD Riverside Methodist Hospital
Mental retardation Cardiac defects Leukemia Alzheimer's Visual/hearing impairment Intestinal malformations Shortened life span Down SyndromePhenotype abnormalities
Why is Prenatal Testing Important? Peace of mind Education Emotional preparation Neonatal issues Termination
Increased Risk of Fetal Aneuploidy • Previous fetus or child with autosomal trisomy or sex chromosome abnormality • One major or two minor fetal structural defects on ultrasound • Either parent with chromosomal translocation or inversion • Parental aneuploidy
Prenatal Testing Screening versus Diagnosis First trimester versus Second trimester Serum and/or Ultrasound Low-risk versus High-risk Women
Diagnostic Tests First trimester CVS TC 10 0/7 - 12 6/7 wks TA 10 0/7 - Term (if anterior placenta) Second trimester Amniocentesis 15 0/7 - Delivery
Amniocentesis Pregnancy loss 1:300-1:500 Spotting or leakage 1-2% Needle injury - rare Infection - rare CVS Pregnancy loss - similar to amniocentesis (TA=TC) Spotting - up to 32% (TC) Leakage or infection - less than 0.5% Procedure-related Risks
Screening Second trimester Maternal age Triple screen (AFP, HCG, estriol) Quad (Triple + inhibin) Ultrasound
Gestational Age (wk) Maternal Age (y) Adapted from Nicolaides, AJOG, 2004
“Age-Based” Screening Old story 5% of pregnant women > 35 yo 80% DS babies born to younger women New story 14% of pregnant women > 35 yo 70% DS born to younger women
Second Trimester MSAFP Merkatz, 1984 Case report: Serendipitous discovery of low MSAFP in case of T18 led to discovery of low MSAFPassociated withfetal trisomy Sensitivity 20% for DS Age + MSAFP = 40% DS detection
Second TrimesterTriple ScreenMSAFP + HCG + Estriol 65% Sensitivity 5%
Second TrimesterQuadScreen Triple screen + inhibin 75 –80% DS detection 5% false positive rate
Thickened nuchal fold Pyelectasis Echogenic bowel Short long bones Congenital anomaly Hypoplastic 5th digit Ear length Echogenic intracardiac focus Second TrimesterUltrasound Markers15-20 weeks
2nd Trimester Nasal Bone Screening AbsentNB 7 studies: 37% prevalence in T21, 0.9% in euploid ShortNB 6 studies: 48.2% prevalence in T21, 2.4% in euploid Short or AbsentNB 6 studies: 60% prevalence in T21, 1.4% in euploid
Second TrimesterUltrasound Up to 75% of DS fetus will have a marker Therefore, 25% will have a normal ultrasound
Problems with Second Trimester Ultrasound • Poor specificity • Subjective • Technical limitations • Variability of gestational age
Aneuploidy Risk for Major Anomalies ADAPTED FROM SLIPP AND BENACERRAF (1990)
First trimester Screening Nuchal translucency Free beta HCG PAPP-A CombinedNT and Serum
First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down’s Syndrome (FASTER Trial) Malone et al, NEJM, 2005 15 U.S. Centers 38,167 women with singletons enrolled 117 cases of DS CRL 36-79mm (10 3/7 – 13 6/7 wks) NT + free beta HCG + PAPP-A (1:150) 15-18 wks Quad screen (1:300)
FASTER Trial First trimester with 5% FP 11/12/13 (wks) NT 70/68/64 Free beta HCG/PAPP-A 70/67/65 Combined 87/85/82* *similar to Quad screen at 13 wks
First and Second Trimester Sequential independent Sequential step-wise Serum integrated Fully integrated Sequential contingent
Faster Trial Sequential independent 11/12/13 (wks) 1st: Combined NT/Serum 87%/85%/82% 2nd: Triple/Quad 69%/81% detection rates Calculateseparately Not recommended because (1) high false positive rate and (2) apriori risk not re-adjusted
Faster TrialSequential Step-wiseFullyIntegrated First trimester NT/serum PLUS Second trimester Quad Blind patient to initial result until completion of Quad. Then give single risk. Exclude those with cystic hygoma. 11/12/13 (wks) Detection rate (%): 96/95/94
FullyIntegrated “Potential” problems Both parts required Loss of follow-up (potential litigation) Physician/patient reluctance to withhold information Precludes early termination
1st Trimester“Absent” Nasal Bone • Usefulness controversial • 3 European studies: Down Syndrome sensitivity: 66.7-80% in high-risk women (0.2-1.4% FP rate) • Some studies show poor performance in general population
Issues with Nasal Bone Screening • Correct technique • Significance of ethnicity AbsentNB seen in 2.8% Caucasians, 6.8% Asians, 10.4% Afro-Carribeans • Optimal population (HR vs. LR) • Optimal gestational age
Pros Higher detection rate Earlier detection Safer termination NT identifies HR fetuses Less bonding More privacy Cons Cost ($600 – 700) Unnecessary termination Unwanted information First-Trimester Screening
NTD Lab US: CRL 45 – 84 mm (11 1/7- 13 6/7 wks) Blood: 9 0/7 – 13 6/7 wks Instant Risk Assessment (IRA) Cost is $165 blood work/$513 Ultrasound DS 1:301 (90%) T18/13 1:150 (95%)
“Invasive diagnostic testing for aneuploidy should be available to all women regardless of maternal age” ACOG, December 2007