Ultrasound findings and multiple marker screening in trisomy 18

Objective: To compare detection of trisomy 18 in the second trimester by ultrasound and multiple-marker testing. Methods: A computerized genetics database was used to identify fetuses of 14–22 weeks’ gestation who had comprehensive ultrasound examinations, multiple-marker screening tests (alpha-feto...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 2000, Vol.95 (1), p.51-54
Hauptverfasser: Brumfield, Cynthia G, Wenstrom, Katharine D, Owen, John, Davis, Richard O
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: To compare detection of trisomy 18 in the second trimester by ultrasound and multiple-marker testing. Methods: A computerized genetics database was used to identify fetuses of 14–22 weeks’ gestation who had comprehensive ultrasound examinations, multiple-marker screening tests (alpha-fetoprotein [AFP]), hCG, unconjugated estriol [E3], and trisomy 18 karyotype. A positive trisomy 18 screen was defined as AFP up to 0.75 multiples of the median (MoM), hCG up to 0.55 MoM, and unconjugated E3 up to 0.60 MoM. A risk of at least 1:190 defined a positive Down syndrome screen. Ultrasound abnormalities were diagnosed prospectively and were confirmed later by retrospective review of sonographic images. Results: From 1988–1997, 30 trisomy 18 fetuses who had comprehensive ultrasounds and multiple-marker testing were identified. Twenty-one (70%) had abnormalities detected by ultrasound, of which the most common isolated finding was choroid plexus cyst. Eleven fetuses (37%) had positive trisomy 18 screens, and two had positive Down syndrome screens, for a total of 13 of 30 (43%) fetuses with positive multiple-marker screening tests. Conclusion: We found that ultrasound was more likely to be abnormal than multiple-marker screening tests in fetuses with trisomy 18 (70%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 54, 86 versus 43% CI 25, 61). However, combining the two testing methods yielded the highest detection rate (80% [CI 66%, 94%]).
ISSN:0029-7844
1873-233X
DOI:10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00461-5