Risk-based prenatal screening for trisomy 18 using alpha-fetoprotein, unconjugated oestriol and human chorionic gonadotropin
Nine centres collaborated to examine the feasibility of a screening method for trisomy 18 that was based on assigning individual risk, using a combination of maternal age and measurements of alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Second‐trimeste...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Prenatal diagnosis 1995-08, Vol.15 (8), p.713-723 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Nine centres collaborated to examine the feasibility of a screening method for trisomy 18 that was based on assigning individual risk, using a combination of maternal age and measurements of alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Second‐trimester measurements of these analytes were obtained from 94 trisomy 18 pregnancies. In the 89 pregnancies without an associated open defect, the median levels for AFP, uE3, and hCG were 0.65, 0.43 and 0.36 multiples of the unaffected population median, respectively. The strongest individual predictor of risk for trisomy 18 was uE3, followed by hCG, AFP, and maternal age, in that order. Using a method of individual risk estimation that is based on the three markers and maternal age, 60 per cent of pregnancies associated with trisomy 18 would be detected at a risk cut‐off level of 1:100, with a false‐positive rate of about 0.2 per cent. One in nine pregnancies identified as being at increased risk for trisomy 18 would be expected to have an affected pregnancy. This risk‐based screening method is more efficient than an existing method that is based on fixed analyte cut‐off levels. Even though the birth prevalence of trisomy 18 is low, prenatal screening can be justified when performed in conjunction with Down syndrome screening and when a high proportion of women offered amniocentesis have an affected fetus. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0197-3851 1097-0223 |
DOI: | 10.1002/pd.1970150806 |