Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Nicolaides’ risk evaluation for down’s syndrome with a novel software: an analysis of 1,463 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The individual risk assessment of fetal Down’s syndrome based on measurement of nuchal translucency (NT) according to Nicolaides, optionally complemented by the determination of PAPP-A and free beta HCG has progressively supplanted other search strategies for fetal aneuploidies. It could be shown that this diagnostic strategy equally detects other numeric aneuploidies at a comparable rate. A positive test result is also predictive for the presence of a fetal malformation. In this field, several computer programs are available for clinical use. The objective of our study was to re-evaluate the first consecutive 1463 NT-risk calculations determined by Nicolaides’ method and to compare the risk calculation to the JOY software (NT-risk calculation module, JOY Patient Database) introduced in 2002.

Material and methods

At the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, 1463 consecutive complete data sets comprising first trimester screening performed between May 2, 2000 and June 26, 2003 and corresponding fetal outcome were analysed using risk assessment based on the Nicolaides method (PIA Fetal Database NT-Module) and compared with the risk evaluation as determined by the JOY software (JOY Patient Database NT module). A risk exceeding 1:300 was considered to indicate the need for further invasive testing. In a first step, only cytogenetically detectable chromosomal aberrations were analysed. Then, a second evaluation including fetal malformations was performed.

Results

Among the 1463 cases, 1445 (98.77%) fetuses revealed to be cytogenetically healthy. Both softwares showed identical detection rates at the genetic and somatic level:13 cases of Down-Syndrome (0.89%), 2 cases of trisomy 18 (0.14%), one case of triploidy, one Turner-Syndrome, one Klinefelter-Syndrome (0.07% each) were detected. A positive test result was found in 15 cases ending in a spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death or peripartum death (1.03%) and in 22 cases of fetal malformation (1.50%). At the level of genetic detection the test positive rate dropped from 92 (PIA) to 71 (JOY) (-22.8%). At the level of combined adverse outcome the test positive rate was reduced from 100 (PIA) to 76 (JOY) (-22.0%), thus yielding in a marked improvement of the characteristic test performance parameters.

Conclusion

The novel, recently developed JOY software package allowed reliable evaluation of the risk for aneuploidy with increased specificity whereas sensitivity was unchanged. Our data suggest an improvement of the screening for aneuploidy when using this novel software: With an identical detection rate, the number of unnecessary invasive measures may be reduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Snijders RJ, Noble P, Sebire N, Souka A, Nicolaides KH (1998) UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group. Lancet 352:343–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pandya PP, Snijders RJ, Johnson SP, De Lourdes Brizot M, Nicolaides KH (1995) Screening for fetal trisomies by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 102:957–962

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schuchter K, Wald N, Hackshaw AK, Hafner E, Liebhart E (1998) The distribution of nuchal translucency at 10-13 weeks of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 18:281–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Krampl E, Wertaschnigg D, Husslein P (2002) First-trimester screening for Down’s syndrome. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 62:843–848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, Mansur C, Marks K (1992) Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 304:867–869

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Snijders RJ, Holzgreve W, Cuckle H, Nicolaides KH (1994) Maternal age-specific risks for trisomies at 9-14 weeks’ gestation. Prenat Diagn 14:543–552

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Braithwaite JM, Morris RW, Economides DL (1996) Nuchal translucency measurements: frequency distribution and changes with gestation in a general population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:1201–1204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wald N, Stone R, Cuckle HS, Grudzinskas JG, Barkai G, Brambati B, Teisner B, Fuhrmann W (1992) First trimester concentrations of pregnancy associated plasma protein A and placental protein 14 in Down’s syndrome. BMJ 305:28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kowalcek I, Mühlhoff A, Bieniakiewizc I, Gembruch U (2001) Non-invasive and invasive prenatal diagnosis and psychological challenges for the pregnant patient. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 61:593–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH (1996) Assessment of risks. In: Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH (eds) Ultrasound markers for fetal chromosomal defects. Parthenon Publishing, Carnforth, UK, pp 109–113

    Google Scholar 

  11. Palomaki GE, Haddow JE (1987) Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein, age, and Down syndrome risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156:460–463

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Snijders RJ, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH (1999) Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicolaides KH, Sebire N, Snijders RJM (1999) Nuchal translucency and chromosomal anomalies. In: Nicolaides KH, Sebire N, Snijders RJM (eds) The 11-14-week scan: the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. Parthenon Publishing, Carnforth, UK, pp 3–72

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK (1997) Combining ultrasound and biochemistry in first-trimester screening for Down’s syndrome. Prenat Diagn 17:821–829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Scharf A, Schmidt P, Seppelt M, Maul H, Wuestemann M, Sohn C (2003) Vergleich der Risikokalkulation für Trisomie 21 nach Nicolaides mit einer neu entwickelten Software: Retrospektive Analyse an 744 Fällen, Geburtsh Frauenheilk 63:148–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Spencer K, Souter V, Tul N, Snijders R, Nicolaides KH (1999) Screening program for trisomy 21at 10/14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin an prgnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:231–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Scharf A, Bock N, Maul H, Sohn C (2006) Analyse des Nackentransparenz (NT-)Screeningkonzepts an der Frauenklinik der MHH: Eine prospektive Follow-up-Studie. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 210(3):99–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Souka A, Heath V (1999) Increased nuchal translucency with normal karyotype. In: Nicolaides KH, Sebire N, Snijders RJM (eds) The 11-14-week scan: the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. Parthenon Publishing, Carnforth, UK, pp 73–97

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hyett J, Perdu M, Sharland G, Snijders R, Nicolaides KH (1999) Using fetal nuchal translucency to screen for major congenital cardiac defects at 10-14 weeks of gestation: population based cohort study. BMJ 318(7176):81–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Harlap S; Shiono PH (1980) Alcohol, smoking, and incidence of spontaneous abortions in the first and second trimester. Lancet 2(8187):173–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chitty LS, Hunt GH, Moore J, Lobb MO (1991) Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. BMJ 303:1165–1169

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Perinatal Medicine, Medical University of Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    Peter Schmidt, Ismini Staboulidou, Philipp Soergel, Max Wüstemann & Peter Hillemanns

  2. Werner-Schrader-Str. 61, 38302, Wolfenbüttel, Germany

    Peter Schmidt

  3. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Alexander Scharf

Authors
  1. Peter Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismini Staboulidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philipp Soergel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Max Wüstemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Hillemanns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Scharf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, P., Staboulidou, I., Soergel, P. et al. Comparison of Nicolaides’ risk evaluation for down’s syndrome with a novel software: an analysis of 1,463 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 275, 469–474 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-006-0288-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-006-0288-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation