Pränataldiagnostik

Aktuelle medizinische Aspekte
Leitthema
  • 447 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Pränataldiagnostik hat in den letzten Jahren eine enorme Entwicklung durchlaufen. Durch die Verbesserung der Ultraschalldiagnostik und die Einführung des Ersttrimesterscreenings hat sich die Anzahl der invasiven pränatalen diagnostischen Eingriffe mehr als halbiert. Die seit Kurzem verfügbaren, nichtinvasiven Tests an zellfreier fetaler DNA aus mütterlichem Blut forcieren diese Entwicklung noch weiter, sodass invasive Eingriffe in naher Zukunft immer seltener zum Einsatz kommen werden und damit auch die Zahl eingriffsbedingter Fehlgeburten weiter sinken wird.

Schlüsselwörter

Schwangerschaft Nichtinvasive Pränataldiagnostik Invasive Pränataldiagnostik Ultraschall Zellfreie fetale DNA 

Prenatal diagnostics

Current medical aspects

Abstract

During the last few years, there has been a rapid development in prenatal diagnosis. Due to the improvements in sonographic examinations and the introduction of first-trimester screening, the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures has dropped by more than 50 %. Recently, noninvasive prenatal diagnostic tests with cell-free fetal DNA from maternal blood have also become available and will further enhance this development. As invasive prenatal procedures will become less frequent in the near future, the proportion of procedure-related abortions will further decrease.

Keywords

Pregnancy Noninvasive prenatal diagnostics Invasive prenatal diagnostics Sonographic examinations Cell-free fetal DNA 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Fehlbildungsmonitoring Sachsen-Anhalt. http://www.angeborene-fehlbildungen.com (Zugegriffen: 05.05.2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mutterschaftsrichtlinien. http://www.g-ba.de/informationen/richtlinien/19/ (Zugegriffen: 05.05.2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borrell A, Stergiotou I (2013) Miscarriage in contemporary maternal-fetal medicine: targeting clinical dilemmas. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 23436575Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWIG). https://www.iqwig.de/download/P08-01_Vorbericht_Aufklaerung_Ultraschallscreening _in_der_Schwangerschaft.pdf (Zugegriffen: 05.05.2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merz E, Eichhorn KH, Hansmann M, Meinel K (2002) Qualitätsanforderungen an die weiterführende differenzialdiagnostische Ultraschalluntersuchung in der pränatalen Diagnostik (= DEGUM Stufe II) im Zeitraum 18. bis 22. Schwangerschaftswoche. Ultraschall Med 23:11–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brady AF, Pandya PP, Yuksel B et al (1998) Outcome of chromosomally normal livebirths with increased fetal nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks‘ gestation. J Med Genet 35:222–224PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bindra R, Heath V, Liao A et al (2002) One stop clinic for assessment of risk for trisomy 21 at 11–14 weeks: a prospective study of 15,030 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20:219–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crossley JA, Aitken DA, Cameron AD et al (2002) Combined ultrasound and biochemical screening for Down’s syndrome in the first trimester: a Scottish multicentre study. BJOG 109:667–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Skibsted L et al (2011) First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:140–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becker R, Wegner RD (2006) Detailed screening for fetal anomalies and cardiac defects at the 11–13-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:613–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Fuchs KM, Monteagudo A, D’alton ME (2009) Performing a fetal anatomy scan at the time of first-trimester screening. Obstet Gynecol 113:402–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hagen A, Entezami M, Gasiorek-Wiens A et al (2011) The impact of first trimester screening and early fetal anomaly scan on invasive testing rates in women with advanced maternal age. Ultraschall Med 32:302–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker R, Schmitz L, Kilavuz S et al (2012) „Normal“ nuchal translucency: a justification to refrain from detailed scan? Analysis of 6858 cases with special reference to ethical aspects. Prenat Diagn 32:550–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansmann M (1981) Nachweis und Ausschluss fetaler Entwicklungsstörungen mittels Ultraschallscreening und gezielter Untersuchung – ein Mehrstufenkonzept. Ultraschall 2:206–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jahn A (2002) Ultraschall-Screening in der Schwangerschaft Evidenz und Vorsorgewirklichkeit. Z Ärztl Fortbild Qualitätssich 96:649–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    NICE (2008) Antenatal care – routine care for the healthy pregnant woman – clinical guideline. National Collaborating Centre for Woman’s and Children’s Health, 2. Aufl. RCOG PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF et al (1997) Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 350:485–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lo YM, Hjelm NM, Fidler C et al (1998) Prenatal diagnosis of fetal RhD status by molecular analysis of maternal plasma. N Engl J Med 339:1734–1738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stumm M, Wegner RD, Hofmann W (2012) Zellfreie fetale DNA im mütterlichen Blut: neue Möglichkeiten in der pränatalen Diagnostik. J Lab Med 36:253–261Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stumm M, Entezami M, Trunk N et al (2012) Noninvasive prenatal detection of chromosomal aneuploidies using different next generation sequencing strategies and algorithms. Prenat Diagn 32:569–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stumm M, Entezami M, Haug K et al (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of random massively parallel sequencing for non-invasive prenatal detection of common autosomal aneuploidies: a collaborative study in Europe. Prenat Diagn (im Druck)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM et al (2011) DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med 13:913–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palomaki GE, Deciu C, Kloza EM et al (2012) DNA sequencing of maternal plasma reliably identifies trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 as well as Down syndrome: an international collaborative study. Genet Med 14:296–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD et al (2012) Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol 119:890–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dan S, Wang W, Ren J et al (2012) Clinical application of massively parallel sequencing-based prenatal noninvasive fetal trisomy test for trisomies 21 and 18 in 11 105 pregnancies with mixed risk factors. Prenat Diagn 32:1225–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J et al (2012) Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation (NICE) Study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:137.e1–137.e8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wagner M et al (2012) Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal plasma cell-free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:322.e1–322.e5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wang E et al (2013) Trisomy 13 detection in the first trimester of pregnancy using a chromosome-selective cell-free DNA analysis method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:21–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen EZ, Chiu RW, Sun H et al (2012) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. PLoS One 6:e21791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lau TK, Chen F, Pan X et al (2012) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of common fetal chromosomal aneuploidies by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25:1370–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Position Statement from the Aneuploidy Screening Committee on Behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis April 2013. http://www.ispdhome.org/public/news/2013/PositionStatementAneuploidy4apr2013.pdf (Zugegriffen: 05.05.2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Benn P, Borrell A, Cuckle H et al (2012) Prenatal detection of Down Syndrome using Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS): a rapid response statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, 24 October 2011. Prenat Diagn 32:1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wegner RD, Stumm M (2011) Zytogenetische Methoden in der Pränataldiagnostik. Med Gen 23:457–462Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L et al (2006) Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 108:1067–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alfirevic Z, Tabor A (2007) Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 109:1203–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Margioula-Siarkou C, Karkanaki A, Kalogiannidis I et al (2013) Operator experience reduces the risk of second trimester amniocentesis-related adverse outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 169:230–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stellungnahme: Die Zukunft der genetischen Diagnostik – von der Forschung in die klinische Anwendung (2013) Deutscher Ethikrat, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Pränataldiagnostik und Humangenetik Kudamm-199BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations