Fine-tuning of routine combined first- trimester screening: The ratio of serum-free- beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (f β -hCG) to pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) could improve performance of Down syndrome screening program,a retrospective cohort study in Iran

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the performance of the current national screening policy for Down syndrome (DS) in Iran and suggest a more efficient protocol with a wealth of a large series of first-trimester screening (FTS) data obtained from Nilou medical laboratory. To fulfill this aim, detection rate (DR), positive screening rate (PSR), false negative rate (FNR) and odds of being affected given a positive results (OAPR) were calculated at different cutoff risk. In the latest update of DS screening program in Iran, there is no place for intermediate group to be further investigated. Next, we proposed a novel parameter namely the ratio of f $\beta$ -hCG multiple of the median (MoM) value to PAPP-A MoM value to delicately categorize FTS results in a way that reduce FNR without imposing unnecessary anxious and extra money on most families.

METHODS:

The present investigation was conducted retrospectively on 197,210 pregnancies undergoing FTS for aneuploidies in Nilou medical laboratory, Tehran, Iran, from March 2015 to February 2016.

RESULTS:

Intermediate risk group is important as 23 out of 45 FN fell in the range 1:250 to 1:1100. By applying the proposed index, the ratio of f $\beta$ -hCG MoM to PAPP-A MoM and subsequent decision about NIPT, 8 out of 23 FN cases in intermediate group could be detected.

CONCLUSION:

Compared with the current policy, our novel proposed approach had better performance and could be applied by the Iran National Health Service to improve the screening program guideline.

Keywords

Down syndrome fβ-hCG pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A PAPP-A

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACOG, ACOG practice bulletin, screening for fetal anueploidy, ACOG Pract Bull 163 (2016), 1–15.

Wald

N.J.

Rudnicka

A.R.

and Bestwick

J.P.

, Sequential and contingent prenatal screening for Down syndrome, Prenat Diagn 26(9) (2006), 769–777.

Plebani

, Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine, Clin Chem Lab Med 44(6) (2006), 750–759.

Parker

S.E.

et al., Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006, Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 88(12) (2010), 1008–1016.

Lean

S.C.

et al., Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis, PLoS One 12(10) (2017), e0186287–e0186287.

Verlohren

and Stepan

, Re: Rational and irrational ratios, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49(1) (2017), 157–158.

Cuckle

, Rational and irrational ratios, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48(3) (2016), 275–278.

Kagan

K.O.

, Two-stage first-trimester screening for trisomy 21 by ultrasound assessment and biochemical testing, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36(5) (2010), 542–547.

Cowans

N.J.

et al., The impact of fetal gender on first trimester nuchal translucency and maternal serum free beta-hCG and PAPP-A MoM in normal and trisomy 21 pregnancies, Prenat Diagn 29(6) (2009), 578–581.

10.

Vogel

et al., Chromosomal microarray as primary diagnostic genomic tool for pregnancies at increased risk within a population-based combined first-trimester screening program, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(4) (2018), 480–486.

11.

Vasegh Rahimparvar

et al., Characteristics of women applying for a legal abortion in the islamic republic of Iran, East Mediterr Heal J 24(11) (2018), 1040–1048.

12.

Lindquist

et al., Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: Implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(4) (2018), 487–492.