Objective: To evaluate the most common first-trimester ultrasound features of fetuses with trisomy 21 (T21) and to examine the screening performance for Down syndrome (DS) using only ultrasound-based protocols. To investigate whether maternal age (MA) has an impact on the efficacy of the ultrasound-based screening methods. Methods: In a prospective study, 6,265 patients were examined. Two ultrasound-based risk calculation protocols were applied: ‘NT' (based on nuchal translucency) and ‘NT+' (based on NT and secondary markers). Results: A total of 5,696 patients were enrolled for analysis; 84 subjects with T21 were identified. Combinations of abnormal ultrasound markers were observed in only 1.2% of euploid fetuses compared to 71.5% of fetuses with T21. Among 17.9% of DS cases with cardiac anomaly, 14.3% comprised atrioventricular septal defects. For a false-positive rate of 3%, the detection rates of T21 were 73.8 and 91.7% for the ‘NT' and ‘NT+' protocols, respectively. The efficacy of both methods was affected by MA. Conclusions: Most of the fetuses with DS demonstrate a combination of ultrasound markers of aneuploidy in the first trimester. The ‘NT+' protocol is efficient and provides comparable performance as a combined screening test. It is a valuable method, especially when the access to biochemical analysis is restricted.

Keywords:
First-trimester screening, Trisomy 21, Nuchal translucency, Congenital heart defect
1.
Shin M, Besser LM, Kucik JE, Lu J, Siffel C, Correa A: Prevalence of Down syndrome among children and adolescents in 10 regions of the United States. Pediatrics 2009;124:1565-1571.
2.
Nicolaides KH, Spencer K, Avgidou K, Faiola S, Falcon O: Multicenter study of first-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in 75,821 pregnancies: results and estimation of the potential impact of individual risk-orientated two-stage first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:221-226.
3.
Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A, Sahota D, Nicolaides KH: 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 2008;32:488-492.
4.
Kagan KO, Etchegaray A, Zhou Y, Wright D, Nicolaides KH: Prospective validation of first-trimester combined screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:14-18.
5.
Nicolaides KH: Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:7-15.
6.
Cuckle HS, Malone FD, Wright D, et al: Contingent screening for Down syndrome - results from the FaSTER trial. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:89-94.
7.
Ghaffari SR, Tahmasebpour AR, Jamal A, Hantoushzadeh S, Eslamian L, Marsoosi V, Fattahi F, Rajaei M, Niroomanesh S, Borna S, Beigi A, Khazardoost S, Saleh-Gargari S, Rahimi-Sharbaf F, Farrokhi B, Bayani N, Tehrani SE, Shahsavan K, Farzan S, Moossavi S, Ramezanzadeh F, Dastan J, Rafati M: First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities by integrated application of nuchal translucency, nasal bone, tricuspid regurgitation and ductus venosus flow combined with maternal serum free β-hCG and PAPP-A: a 5-year prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:528-534.
8.
Karadzov-Orlic N, Egic A, Milovanovic Z, Marinkovic M, Damnjanovic-Pazin B, Lukic R, Joksic I, Curkovic A, Mikovic Z: Improved diagnostic accuracy by using secondary ultrasound markers in the first-trimester screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:638-643.
9.
Senat MV, Bernard JP, Boulvain M, Ville Y: Intra- and interoperator variability in fetal nasal bone assessment at 11-14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:138-141.
10.
Falcon O, Faiola S, Huggon I, Allan L, Nicolaides KH: Fetal tricuspid regurgitation at the 11+0 to 13+6-week scan: association with chromosomal defects and reproducibility of the method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:609-612.
11.
Maiz N, Kagan KO, Milovanovic Z, Celik E, Nicolaides KH: Learning curve for Doppler assessment of ductus venosus flow at 11+0 to 13+6 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:503-506.
12.
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine: AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29:157-166.
13.
Fetal Echocardiography Task Force; American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Clinical Standards Committee; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine: AIUM practice guideline for the performance of fetal echocardiography. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30:127-136.
14.
Abu-Rustum RS, Ziade MF, Abu-Rustum SE: Learning curve and factors influencing the feasibility of performing fetal echocardiography at the time of the first-trimester scan. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30:695-700.
17.
Cicero S, Dezerega V, Andrade E, Scheier M, Nicolaides KH: Learning curve for sonographic examination of the fetal nasal bone at 11-14 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:135-137.
18.
Engels MA, Twisk JW, Blankenstein MA, van Vugt JM: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with serum sampling at different gestational ages: the effect on screening performance. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;36:293-298.
19.
Spencer K: Screening for Down syndrome. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2014;244:41-47.
20.
Valentin M, Muller F, Beaujard MP, Dreux S, Czerkiewicz I, Meyer V, Leruez M, Ville Y, Salomon LJ: First-trimester combined screening for trisomy 21 in women with renal disease. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:244-248.
21.
Norton ME, Jacobson B, Swarny GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, Tomlinson MW, Pereira L, Spitz JL, Hollemon D, Cuckle H, Musci TJ, Wapner RJ: Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-1597.
22.
Gjerris AC, Loft A, Pinborg A, Christiansen M, Tabor A: First-trimester screening markers are altered in pregnancies conceived after IVF/ICSI. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:8-17.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.