Lorraine Dugoff

Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the contemporary procedure-related loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis using a database generated from patients who were recruited to the First And Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk for Aneuploidy trial. METHODS: A total of 35,003 unselected patients from the general population with viable singleton pregnancies were enrolled in the First And Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk for Aneuploidy trial between 10 3/7 and 13 6/7 weeks gestation and followed up prospectively for complete pregnancy outcome information. Patients who either did (study group, n=3,096) or did not (control group, n=31,907) undergo midtrimester amniocentesis were identified from the database. The rate of fetal loss less than 24 weeks of gestation was compared between the two groups, and multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: The spontaneous fetal loss rate less than 24 weeks of gestation in the study group was 1.0% and was not statistically different from the background 0.94% rate seen in the control group (P=.74, 95% confidence interval –0.26%, 0.49%). The procedure-related loss rate after amniocentesis was 0.06% (1.0% minus the background rate of 0.94%). Women undergoing amniocentesis were 1.1 times more likely to have a spontaneous loss (95% confidence interval 0.7–1.5). CONCLUSION: The procedure-related fetal loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis performed on patients in a contemporary prospective clinical trial was 0.06%. There was no significant difference in loss rates between those undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

Position statement from the Aneuploidy Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis

Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Maternitat Campus, University of Barcelona Medical School, Catalonia, Spain Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands Prenatal Screening Unit, Clinical Biochemistry Department, Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, King George Hospital, Goodmayes, UK Genetics Program, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Genetic Institute, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel *Correspondence to: Peter Benn. E-mail: benn@nso1.uchc.edu This Statement replaces the January 2011 Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2011;31:519–522) and the Rapid Response Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2012;32:1–2).

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

Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Maternitat Campus, University of Barcelona Medical School, Catalonia, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands Prenatal Screening Unit, Clinical Biochemistry Department, Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospital, King George Hospital, Goodmayes, UK Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Genetic Institute, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel *Correspondence to: Peter Benn. E-mail: benn@nso1.uchc.edu

First-trimester septated cystic hygroma: prevalence, natural history, and pediatric outcome.

Objective: To estimate prevalence, natural history, and outcome of septated cystic hygroma in the first trimester in the general obstetric population, and to differentiate this finding from simple increased nuchal translucency. Methods: Patients at 10.3–13.6 weeks of gestation underwent nuchal translucency sonography as part of a multicenter clinical trial. Septated cystic hygroma cases were offered chorionic villi sampling for karyotype, and targeted fetal anatomical and cardiac evaluations. Survivors were followed up for fetal and long-term pediatric outcome (median 25 months, range 12–50 months). Cases of septated cystic hygroma were also compared with cases of simple increased nuchal translucency. Results: There were 134 cases of cystic hygroma (2 lost to follow-up) among 38,167 screened patients (1 in 285). Chromosomal abnormalities were diagnosed in 67 (51%), including 25 trisomy-21, 19 Turner syndrome, 13 trisomy-18, and 10 others. Major structural fetal malformations (primarily cardiac and skeletal) were diagnosed in 22 of the remaining 65 cases (34%). There were 5 cases (8%) of fetal death and 15 cases of elective pregnancy termination without evidence of abnormality. One of 23 (4%) normal survivors was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and developmental delay. Overall, survival with normal pediatric outcome was confirmed in 17% of cases (22 of 132). Compared with simple increased nuchal translucency, cystic hygroma has 5-fold, 12-fold, and 6-fold increased risk of aneuploidy, cardiac malformation, and perinatal death, respectively. Conclusion: First-trimester cystic hygroma was a frequent finding in a general obstetric screening program. It has the strongest prenatal association with aneuploidy described to date, with significantly worse outcome compared with simple increased nuchal translucency. Most pregnancies with normal evaluation at the completion of the second trimester resulted in a healthy infant with a normal pediatric outcome. Level of Evidence: II-2

Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis

President President-Elect Past President Secretary Treasurer Lucas Otano MD, PhD (Argentina) Ignatia B. Van den Veyver MD (USA) Jan M.M. van Lith MD, PhD (Netherlands) Louise Wilkins-Haug MD (USA) Antoni Borrell MD, PhD (Spain) Directors Peter Benn PhD, DSc (USA) Lyn Chitty PhD (UK) Rossa Chiu (Hong Kong) Roland Devlieger MD, PhD (Belgium) Sylvie Langlois MD, CCMG (Canada) Anthony O. Odibo MD, MSCE (USA) R. Doug Wilson MD, Msc, FRCSC (Canada) Yuval Yaron MD (Israel) Diana W. Bianchi MD, ex officio (USA) Position Statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on Behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis

Role of second-trimester genetic sonography after Down syndrome screening.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of second-trimester genetic sonography in modifying Down syndrome screening test results. METHODS: The First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk (FASTER) aneuploidy screening trial participants were studied from 13 centers where a 15- to 23-week genetic sonogram was performed in the same center. Midtrimester Down syndrome risks were estimated for five screening test policies: first-trimester combined, second-trimester quadruple, and testing sequentially by integrated, stepwise, or contingent protocols. The maternal age-specific risk and the screening test risk were modified using likelihood ratios derived from the ultrasound findings. Separate likelihood ratios were obtained for the presence or absence of at least one major fetal structural malformation and for each “soft” sonographic marker statistically significant at the P<.005 level. Detection and false-positive rate were calculated for the genetic sonogram alone and for each test before and after risk modification. RESULTS: A total of 7,842 pregnancies were studied, including 59 with Down syndrome. Major malformations and 8 of the 18 soft markers evaluated were highly significant. The detection rate for a 5% false-positive rate for the genetic sonogram alone was 69%; the detection rate increased from 81% to 90% with the combined test, from 81% to 90% with the quadruple test, from 93% to 98% with the integrated test, from 97% to 98% with the stepwise test, and from 95% to 97% with the contingent test. The stepwise and contingent use of the genetic sonogram after first-trimester screening both yielded a 90% detection rate. CONCLUSION: Genetic sonography can increase detection rates substantially for combined and quadruple tests and more modestly for sequential protocols. Substituting sonography for quadruple markers in sequential screening was not useful. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Early access to prenatal care: implications for racial disparity in perinatal mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate racial disparities in perinatal mortality in women with early access to prenatal care. METHODS: A prospectively collected database from a large, multicenter investigation of singleton pregnancies, the FASTER trial, was queried. Patients were recruited from an unselected obstetric population between 1999 and 2002. A total of 35,529 pregnancies with early access to prenatal care were reviewed for this analysis. The timing of perinatal loss was assessed. The following intervals were evaluated: fetal demise at less than 24 weeks of gestation, fetal demise at 24 or more weeks of gestation, and neonatal demise. Perinatal mortality was defined as the sum of these three intervals. RESULTS: The study population was 5% black, 22% Hispanic, 68% white, and 5% other. All minority races experienced higher rates of intrauterine growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm premature rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, preterm birth, very-preterm birth, cesarean delivery, light vaginal bleeding, and heavy vaginal bleeding compared with the white population. Overall perinatal mortality was 13 per 1,000 (471/35,529). The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for perinatal mortality (utilizing the white population as the referent race) were: black 3.5 (2.5–4.9), Hispanic 1.5 (1.2–2.1), and other 1.9 (1.3–2.8). CONCLUSION: Racial disparities in perinatal mortality persist in contemporary obstetric practice despite early access to prenatal care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

First- and second-trimester evaluation of risk for Down syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the differences in costs and outcomes of Down syndrome screening using data from the First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk (FASTER) Trial. METHODS: Seven possible screening options for Down syndrome were compared: 1) Triple Screen—maternal serum alpha fetoprotein, estriol, and hCG; 2) Quad—maternal serum alpha fetoprotein, estriol, hCG, and Inhibin A; 3) Combined First—nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), free &bgr;-hCG; 4) Integrated—nuchal translucency, PAPP-A, plus Quad; 5) Serum Integrated—PAPP-A, plus Quad; 6) Stepwise Sequential—Combined First plus Quad with results given after each test; and 7) Contingent Sequential—Combined First and only those with risk between 1:30 and 1:1,500 have Quad screen. The detection rates for each option were used given a 5% false-positive rate except for Contingent Sequential with a 4.3% false-positive rate. Outcomes included societal costs of each screening regimen (screening tests, amniocentesis, management of complications, and cost of care of Down syndrome live births), Down syndrome fetuses identified and born, the associated quality-adjusted life years, and the incremental cost-utility ratio. RESULTS: Based on the screening results derived from the 38,033 women evaluated in the FASTER trial, the Contingent Sequential screen dominated (lower costs with better outcomes) all other screens. For example, the Contingent Sequential cost 32.3 million dollars whereas the other screens ranged from 32.8 to 37.5 million dollars. The Sequential strategy led to the identification of the most Down syndrome fetuses of all of the screens, but at a higher cost per Down syndrome case diagnosed (

First- and second-trimester maternal serum markers for aneuploidy and adverse obstetric outcomes.

719,675 compared with

Is it time to sound an alarm about false-positive cell-free DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy?

690,427) as compared with the Contingent Sequential. Because of the lower overall false-positive rate leading to fewer procedure-related miscarriages, the Contingent Sequential resulted in the highest quality-adjusted life years as well. The Contingent Sequential remained the most cost-effective option throughout sensitivity analysis of inputs, including amniocentesis rate after positive screen, rate of therapeutic abortion after Down syndrome diagnosis, and rate of procedure-related miscarriages. CONCLUSION: Analysis of this actual data from the FASTER Trial demonstrates that the Contingent Sequential test is the most cost-effective. This information can help shape future policy regarding Down syndrome screening.