Combined Second-Trimester Biochemical and Ultrasound Screening for Down Syndrome

Benn, Peter; Kaminsky, Lillian; Ying, Jun; Borgida, Adam; Egan, James

doi:10.1097/00006250-200212000-00005

Cited by 28 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Benn et al 29 observed a significant negative correlation between log AFP and log NF thickness in control pregnancies (correlation coefficient, -0.210; P < .01), which was not apparent in our study. Benn et al also reported a negative correlation between log estriol and log NF thickness (correlation coefficient, -0.032; P < .01) in cases affected with fetal 30 reported a significant positive correlation between NF thickness and hCG among fetuses with trisomy 21 but not in control fetuses.…”

contrasting

confidence: 88%

“…These are discussed in greater detail below and compared with the results of a similar study by Benn et al 29 These results are also compared with a previous study of fetuses with trisomy 21 by Souter et al 30 In this study, a weakly negative correlation was observed between both FL and HL and hCG. Benn et al 29 observed weakly negative correlations between log hCG and both log BPD/FL and log BPD/HL in control fetuses, but these did not reach statistical significance. However, the study by Benn et al did report a significant negative correlation between estriol and both BPD/FL and BPD/HL among fetuses with trisomy 21.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…[23][24][25][26][27][28] However, there are little data to indicate whether sonographic markers are independent of biochemical markers. In one of the few studies correlating sonographic and biochemical markers, Benn et al 29 analyzed the correlations between second-trimester biochemical markers (α-fetoprotein [AFP], hCG, unconjugated estriol, and dimeric inhibin A) and 3 sonographic markers (HL, FL, and NF thickness) in 72 pregnancies affected by trisomy 21 and in 7063 control pregnancies scanned between 15 and 22 weeks' gestation. Souter et al 30 measured sonographic and serum marker correlations in an additional 72 pregnancies complicated by Down syndrome.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Correlation of Second-Trimester Sonographic and Biochemical Markers

Souter

Nyberg

Benn

et al. 2004

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. To investigate correlations between sonographic soft markers and biochemical markers (human chorionic gonadotrophin, α-fetoprotein, and estriol) for Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. Methods. A total of 2183 women with apparently normal singleton fetuses who underwent second-trimester sonography (14-22 weeks) and maternal serum biochemical testing (triple test) were identified. Seven sonographic markers were recorded: nuchal fold thickness, humerus length, femur length, renal pyelectasis, hyperechoic bowel, echogenic intracardiac focus, and choroid plexus cysts. Results. Weak negative but statistically significant correlations were observed between human chorionic gonadotropin (multiples of the median) and both femur length (multiples of the median; Spearman ρ = -0.073; P < .01) and humerus length (multiples of the median; Spearman ρ = -0.083; P < .01). No other correlations significant at the 1% level were observed between femur length (multiples of the median) or humerus length (multiples of the median) and the biochemical markers. There were no significant correlations between nuchal fold thickness and any of the 3 biochemical markers. At the 5% (P < .05) level, the median human chorionic gonadotropin level (multiples of the median) was lower when an echogenic intracardiac focus was detected. Hyperechoic bowel also tended to be associated with higher median human chorionic gonadotropin (multiples of the median) and α-fetoprotein (multiples of the median) levels (P < .05). Conclusions. We found that sonographic and biochemical markers for trisomy 21 are largely independent in unaffected pregnancies. For accurate risk estimation, correlations in both affected and unaffected pregnancies need to be considered. No or minimal correlation between sonographic markers and serum screening tests indicates that they can be used as independent modifiers of the maternal age-specific risk for Down syndrome.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Correlation of Second-Trimester Sonographic and Biochemical Markers

Souter

Nyberg

Benn

et al. 2004

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such women expressed positive attitude (100 %) to perform testing in their future pregnancy. Although they have poor knowledge, these findings were reported by different authors [8,15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Prenatal Diagnosis in Low Resource Setting: Is It Acceptable?

Shalaby

EL-Hady

Gamal

et al. 2012

J Obstet Gynecol India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim This study aimed to explore knowledge and acceptability of prenatal procedures both non-invasive prenatal screening tests and invasive procedures among Egyptian women in childbearing age and to assess their attitude toward such procedures. Also to examine confounding factors affecting women's attitude toward prenatal procedures. Study Design A cross-sectional study on a representative sample of women in childbearing age attending Obstetrics & Gynecology outpatient clinic at Mansoura University Hospital, Egypt. An anonymous questionnaire was supplemented by voluntary interviewers for women in childbearing age. Results 465 women were included in the study. The mean age ± SD was 27 ± 6 years. About 44 % of women were knowledgeable about non-invasive prenatal screening procedure, and only 25.5 % had heard about invasive prenatal procedures. 88.8 % express positive attitude regarding performance of the screening tests. Forty-one percent of the group agreed to perform invasive prenatal procedures during their pregnancy. Educational level and family history of congenital anomalies significantly affected attitudes toward testing during future pregnancy. The cost of procedure affected the decision to perform in 56.7 % of women. Conclusion Egyptian women express positive attitude toward non-invasive prenatal screening but showed poor knowledge. Their attitude toward invasive procedure is guarded by the risk of abortion. Education and family history of fetal anomalies are the factors that affect attitudes. The cost of the prenatal test affects the decision made by the women to participate in testing.

show abstract

“…More recently, Benn, Kaminsky, Ying, Borgida, and Egan (2002) reported a study that evaluated the efficacy of DS screening by combining second-trimester maternal serum analytes and the ultrasound measurements of nuchal-skinfold thickness plus proximal long-bone length. The information was collected from January 1992 through March 2001 from a database of 7,063 referrals.…”

Section: Nuchal Thickeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Biochemical and Ultrasound Markers in the Detection of Down Syndrome

Peterson

2006

jpe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Childbirth educators need to understand existing prenatal care opportunities and current information for expectant women. This article reviews several testing options that are available during the second trimester of pregnancy to detect the risk of Down syndrome. Educators can help expectant women develop their own specific plan of care according to their special situations and needs. Pregnancy outcomes can be improved when women are informed and educated about the testing available to them.

show abstract

Combined Second-Trimester Biochemical and Ultrasound Screening for Down Syndrome

Cited by 28 publications

References 22 publications

Correlation of Second-Trimester Sonographic and Biochemical Markers

Correlation of Second-Trimester Sonographic and Biochemical Markers

Prenatal Diagnosis in Low Resource Setting: Is It Acceptable?

A Review of Biochemical and Ultrasound Markers in the Detection of Down Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About