Comparison of risk calculation approaches in a screening programme for Down syndrome

Köster, Maria; Heetkamp, Kirsten M.; Miranda, Esteriek de; Schielen, Peter C. J. I.

doi:10.1515/jpm-2011-0121

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A range of policies for prenatal diagnosis have been developed in different countries worldwide, including Romania. Since the introduction of screening policies, most European countries have reported a significant reduction in the rate of liveborns infants with Down syndrome [33][34][35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned

Simionescu

Stănescu

2020

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Here, we performed a descriptive analysis of Down syndrome (DS) cases that were misdiagnosed and/or false-negative diagnosed after first trimester traditional screening via risk evaluation using ultrasound, biochemical markers, and different software programs. Our objective was to demonstrate the clear need to improve the application of prenatal DS screening programs using standardized ultrasound measurements, accurate pregnancy dating, analytical immunoassay performance, and properly selected medians. Materials and Methods: We performed a database search for the period 2010–2015 to analyze DS cases that were false-negative diagnosed after the first trimester of pregnancy, before the introduction of cell free fetal DNA-based tests by Romanian laboratories in 2015. First-trimester screening was performed using two software programs for prenatal DS risk calculation: Astraia and Prisca. The rationale for using both software programs was to assess the full risk using the maternal age combined test (based on nuchal translucency thickness, nasal bone, ductus venosus flow, tricuspid flow, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin level, and serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A) and, in some cases, the triple test. Results: We identified seven DS cases that exhibited low risk for trisomy 21, and 6540 cases with a low risk for trisomy 21 and euploid fetus in the first trimester. Using Astraia software, 14 cases were diagnosed, and three cases were missed after risk calculation. Using Prisca software, four cases were missed. Additionally, one neonate had a missed prenatal diagnosis of atrio-ventricular canal defect. Conclusion: In Romania, the evaluation of DS risk depends on patient choice (without knowing the accuracy of the utilized tests) and on the operators’ skills. Both Astraia and Prisca software were developed by experts, who can prove their performance in DS screening. However, even in an ideal situation, false-negative results are possible. The application of first and second-trimester combined screening based on biochemical markers could be improved by the implementation of standardized protocols, professional guidelines for test application, and audit control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%