Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Advanced first trimester screening (AFS): an improved test strategy for the individual risk assessment of fetal aneuploidies and malformations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

First trimester risk assessment for fetal aneuploidies is computed on the base of a general background risk, which is depending on the maternal age. Thereby, the adjusted risk tends to rise with increasing age. Obversely, more unsuspicious fetal parameters [measurement of the nuchal translucency (NT) and biochemical parameters, free beta human chorionic gonadotropine (fß-Hcg) and pregnancy associated plasma protein A (Papp-A)] have to be observed to result in an unsuspicious test at higher age. It was the aim of this study to investigate the potential value of a novel risk assessment algorithm explicitly disregarding the maternal age.

Methods

This was an ultrasound cohort study of 1,463 singleton pregnancies at 11–14 weeks of gestation undergoing a first trimester screening for fetal aneuploidies by measuring the (NT), Papp-A and fß-hCG. In each case, the pregnancy outcome was obtained. Regarding either the detection of genetic affections or the combined detection of genetic or somatic anomalies, the test performance parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) were calculated and compared with each other. For risk calculation the standard Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF)-Software and an alternative software with a similar algorithm (JOY-Software) were utilized. Compared to this, the risk assessment had been modified by implementing a novel calculation algorithm (advanced first trimester screening algorithm, AFS) purposely disregarding the maternal age and again, the test performance parameters had been computed and were compared with the first ones.

Results

At the mere genetic analysis, all four test-strategies revealed to have identical sensitivity and negative predictive values. Compared to the standard FMF-Software, the JOY-Software showed a reduced false positive rate. In addition, in both softwares, the false positive rate is highly significant-reduced by implementing the AFS-algorithm. At combined genetic and somatic analysis, analogous results on different counts could be found.

Conclusion

In the effort to create an algorithm characterising somatic and fetal conditions of the fetus most properly, the inclusion of maternal age is not a helpful value and excluding the age from risk calculation leads to a high significant reduction of the false positive rate. Further, a comparable marked increase of both, specificity and positive predictive values, can be achieved for the FMF- and JOY-Software on the background of the generally more favourable JOY test performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shuttleworth GE (1909) Mongolian imbecility. Br Med J 2:661–665

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A (1997) Antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome. J Med Screen 4(4):181–246 (Review Erratum in: J Med Screen 1998 5(2):110, J Med Screen 1998 5(3):166)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Spencer K, Spencer CE, Power M, Moakes A, Nicolaides KH (2000) One stop clinic for assessment of risk for fetal anomalies: a report of the first year of prospective screening for chromosomal anomalies in the first trimester. BJOG 107(10):1271–1275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pandya PP, Snijders RJM, Johnson SJ, Brizot M, Nicolaides KH (1995) Screening for fetal trisomies by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 102:957–962

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Palomaki GE, Haddow JE (1987) Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein, age, and Down syndrome risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156(2):460–463

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nicolaides KH, Sebire N, Snijders RJM (1999) Die Ultraschalluntersuchung der 11.–14. Schwangerschaftswoche. Pathenon, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schmidt P (2004) Unterschiedliche Risikoberechnung bei hochaufflliger NT-Messung: Betrachtung der verschiedenen Kalkulationsprogramme. Presentation on the 120th congress of the northern German society of obstetrics and gynecology (Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, NGGG), Rostock, Germany

  8. Snijders RJM, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH (1999) Maternal age and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Snijders RJM, Noble P, Sebire N, Souka A, Nicolaides KH (1998) UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Lancet 351:343–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, Mansur C, Marks K (1992) Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. Br Med J 304:867–889

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wald N, Stone R, Cuckle HS, Grudzinskas JG, Barkai G, Brambati B, Teisner B, Fuhrmann W (1992) First trimester concentrations of pregnancy associated plasma protein A and placental protein 14 in Down’s syndrome. Br Med J 305:28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK (1997) Combining ultrasound and biochemistry in first-trimester screening for Down’s syndrome. Prenat Diagn 17(9):821–829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tanner M (2002) The scientific definition of obesity and its dangers. West J Med 176:23–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. http://www.fetalmedicine.com/f-books11–14.htm, accessed 13 July 2004

  15. Schmidt P, Scharf A (2006) Advanced first trimester screening—a critical review of the fundamental studies and suggestions for improvement. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 67:S1–S183

    Google Scholar 

  16. Braithwaite JM, Morris RW, Economides DL (1996) Nuchal translucency measurements: frequency distribution and changes with gestation in a general population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:1201–1204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pandya PP, Kondylios A, Hilbert L, Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH (1998) Chromosomal defects and outcome in 1,015 fetuses with increased nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 11:391–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brady AF, Pandya PP, Yuksel B, Greenough A, Patton MA, Nicolaides KH (1998) Outcome of chromosomally normal livebirths with increased fetal nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks’ gestation. J Med Genet 35:222–224

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hyett JA, Perdu M, Sharland GK, Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH (1999) Using fetal nuchal translucency to screen for major congenital cardiac defects at 10–14 weeks of gestation: population based cohort study. Br Med J 318:81–85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sebire NJ, Snijders RJM, Davenport M, Greenough A, Nicolaides KH (1994) First-trimester diagnosis of fetal congenital heart disease by transvaginal ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol 84:69–72

    Google Scholar 

  21. Makrydimas G, Souka A, Skentou H, Lolis D, Nicolaides KH (2001) Osteogenesis imperfecta and other skeletal dysplasias present with increased nuchal translucency in the first trimester: two case-reports and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet 98(2):117–120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Frenz JP, Spranger S, Schröder W (2004) Auffällige Nackentransparenz und unauffälliger Karyotyp. Wie viele Feten sind trotzdem erkrankt und um welche Erkrankungen handelt es sich? Congress report from 120th congress of the northern German society of obstetrics and gynecology (Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, NGGG), Rostock, Germany, p 109

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Hannover, Bahnhofstraße 4, 38300, Wolfenbüttel, Germany

    Peter Schmidt & Peter Hillemanns

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Joachim Rom, Holger Maul & Alexander Scharf

  3. Department for Biometry and Statistics, Medical University Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    Bernhard Vaske

Authors
  1. Peter Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joachim Rom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holger Maul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernhard Vaske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Hillemanns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Scharf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, P., Rom, J., Maul, H. et al. Advanced first trimester screening (AFS): an improved test strategy for the individual risk assessment of fetal aneuploidies and malformations. Arch Gynecol Obstet 276, 159–166 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0324-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0324-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation