Advertisement

Performance of Common Down Syndrome Screening Methods Used in India with Construction of an Indian Normogram for Nuchal Translucency/Crown–Rump Length Measurements in 14,337 Subjects

  • Anita KaulEmail author
  • Prathima Radhakrishnan
Original Article

Abstract

Background/Purpose of Study

Sonologists often lack access to the Fetal Medicine Foundation Down syndrome risk calculation software or cannot offer the combined test for aneuploidy screening because of resource constraints. Instead, sonologists use nuchal translucency (NT) measurements that rely on fixed NT cut-offs for labelling foetuses with high risks for Down syndrome. In the present study, we aimed to plot normative data for NT and the crown–rump length (CRL) in Indian foetuses and to assess the value of using the 95th/99th centiles of NT for CRL cut-offs instead of fixed NT cut-offs to calculate the risk for aneuploidies during the first trimester.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study measuring the NT/CRL in 14,337 Indian foetuses between 11 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. We used regression analysis and calculated the 95th/99th centiles of NT distribution. We compared performances of NT > 95th/99th centiles and fixed NT cut-offs of 2.5- and 3.5-mm  as screening.

Results

The NT measurements increased with increasing CRL values. NT > 95th centile for a particular CRL for detecting all aneuploidies had the maximum sensitivity of 73.9% for a false positive rate (FPR) of 4.3%. Similar values for fixed cut-off > 2.5 mm were 63.0% FPR 3.7% (T21 68.2 FPR 3.8%) and for NT > 3.5 mm 36.9% FPR 0.43% (T21 36.5% FPR 0.5%)

Conclusion

A fixed NT cut-off point is not appropriate for the first trimester screening. The best sensitivity for assessing aneuploidies is achieved using the 95th centile, but the 99th centile achieves higher specificity for gestational age.

Keywords

Down syndrome Antenatal screening Nuchal translucency Combined first trimester screening NT normogram 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the fellows and consultant colleagues at both Delhi and Bangalore centres who helped with scanning the patients.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Anita Kaul and Prathima Radhakrishnan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2008.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Ethical Approval

This study has been approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee.

Supplementary material

13224_2018_1196_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
NT/CRL Normogram (DOCX 11 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Nicolaides KH, Brizot ML, Snijders RJ. Fetal nuchal transluscency: ultrasound sreening for fetal trisomy in the first trimester of pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101:782–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Souka AP, Snijders RJ, Novakov A, et al. Defects and syndromes in chromosomally normal fetuses with increased nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilardo CM, Pajkrt E, de Graaf I, et al. Outcome of fetuses with enlarged nuchal translucency and normal karyotype. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11:401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alldred SK, Takwoingi Y, Guo B, et al. First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down’s syndrome screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jain S, Chowdhury V, Juneja M, et al. Intellectual disability in Indian children: experience with a stratified approach for etiological diagnosis. Indian Pediatr. 2013;50:1125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim MH, Park SH, Cho HJ, et al. Threshold of nuchal translucency for the detection of chromosomal aberration: comparison of different cut-offs. J Korean Med Sci. 2006;21(1):11–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Acacio GL, Barini R, Pinto Júnior W, et al. Nuchal translucency: an ultrasound marker for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Sao Paulo Med J. 2001;119(1):19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hafner E, Schuchter K, Liebhart E, et al. Results of routine fetal nuchal translucency measurement at weeks 10–13 in 4233 unselected pregnant women. Prenat Diagn. 1998;18(1):29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuchter K, Hafner E, Stangl G, et al. The first trimester ‘combined test’ for the detection of Down syndrome pregnancies in 4939 unselected pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22(3):211–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Babbur V, Lees CC, Goodburn SF, et al. Prospective audit of a one-centre combined nuchal translucency and triple test programme for the detection of trisomy 21. Prenat Diagn. 2005;25(6):465–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hewitt BG, de Crespigny L, Sampson AJ, et al. Correlation between nuchal thickness and abnormal karyotype in first trimester fetuses. Med J Aust. 1996;165(7):365–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsis IO. Screening for Down syndrome using nuchal translucency thickness and nasal bone examination at advanced maternal age in Jakarta: a preliminary report. J Med Ultrasound. 2004;12(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nicolaides K, Azar G, Byrne D, et al. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in the first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ. 1992;304:867–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pajkrt E, Mol BW, Van Lith JM, et al. Bilardo CM screening for Down’s syndrome by fetal nuchal translucency measurement in a high-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;12(3):156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michailidis GD, Spencer K, Economides DL. The use of nuchal translucency measurement and second trimester biochemical markers in screening for Down’s syndrome. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108(10):1047–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaul A, Singh C, Gupta R, et al. Observational study comparing the performance of first-trimester screening protocols for detecting trisomy 21 in a North Indian population. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017;137:14–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Apollo Centre For Fetal MedicineIndraprastha Apollo HospitalsNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Bangalore Fetal Medicine CentreBangaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations