First trimester maternal serum placenta growth factor (PIGF)concentrations in pregnancies with fetal trisomy 21 or trisomy 18

Placenta growth factor (PIGF), an angiogenic factor belonging to the vascular endothelial growth factor family, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) and free β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG) were measured in maternal serum from 45 pregnancies with trisomy 21, 45 with trisomy 18 and 493 normal controls at 10–13 completed weeks of gestation. In the normal pregnancies maternal serum PIGF levels increased exponentially with gestation. The median multiple of the median (MoM) PIGF concentration in the trisomy 21 group (1.26 MoM) was significantly higher (p<0.0001) than in the control group (1.00 MoM). In the trisomy 18 group the median PIGF was lower (0.889 MoM) but this did not quite reach significance (p=0.064). The corresponding median MoM values for PAPP-A were 1.00 MoM for the controls, 0.49 MoM for trisomy 21 and 0.16 MoM for trisomy 18. The median MoM values for free β-hCG were 1.00 MoM for the controls, 2.05 MoM for trisomy 21 and 0.38 MoM for trisomy 18. In the control group there was a small but significant correlation of PIGF with free β-hCG (r=+0.1024) and PAPP-A (r=+0.2288). In the trisomy 18 group there was a significant association between PIGF and free β-hCG (r=+0.2629) but not with PAPP-A (r=+0.0038). In the trisomy 21 group there was a small but significant association with PAPP-A (r=+0.1028) but not with free β-hCG (r=+0.0339). The separation of affected and unaffected pregnancies in maternal serum PIGF is small, and therefore it is unlikely that measurement of PIGF would improve screening for these abnormalities provided by the combination of fetal nuchal translucency and maternal serum PAPP-A and free β-hCG. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Down syndrome maternal serum marker screening after 18 weeks' gestation

Women having access to prenatal care late in pregnancy may still wish to benefit from maternal serum screening for Down syndrome. Therefore, we established reference values for α-feto protein (AFP) and free β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG), and assessed the diagnostic value of maternal serum marker screening at 18–35 weeks' gestation based upon a series of 4072 sera from unaffected pregnancies and 118 sera from pregnant women with fetuses affected by Down syndrome. Using a 1/250 risk cut-off, a detection rate of 72.9% (95% CI = 71.5–74.3%) was achieved with a false-positive rate of 7.51% (95% CI = 6.71–8.3%). This was not significantly different from the percentages observed in our 14–17 weeks routine screening (50 596 patients): 71.9% (95% CI = 71.5–72.3%) and 6.48% (95% CI = 6.28–6.68%), respectively. Detection and screen-positive rates were, respectively, 51.3% (95% CI = 35.6–67.0%) and 5.95% (95% CI = 5.12–6.68%) in women aunder 35 years of age, and 84.8% (95% CI = 76.9–92.7%) and 24% (95% CI = 20.7–27.3%) in women aged 35 years and over. In conclusion, maternal serum marker screening is feasible at 18 weeks' gestation and later, which may be of interest in selected cases. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The variation of risk estimates through pregnancy in second trimester maternal serum screening for Down syndrome

The variation of risk estimates in second trimester maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome has been shown to be considerable in quality control schemes, i.e. UKNEQAS. We studied the biological variation of risk estimates in 16 women through pregnancy. The maternal serum markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), unconjugated estriol (uE3) and β-hCG were determined six times during late first to late second trimester, and the associated likelihood ratios for Down syndrome were calculated. The interpersonal variation of markers, as well as that of the likelihood ratio, was much greater than the intrapersonal variation. The average intrapersonal standard deviation (SD) of the triple test log likelihood ratio was 0.2291, corresponding to a central 95-percentile interval 0.36–2.81 of the likelihood ratio. The interpersonal SD of the log likelihood ratio was 0.5482, corresponding to a central 95-percentile interval 0.08–11.87 of the likelihood ratio. The large difference between the intra- and interpersonal variation makes it unlikely that biological variation through pregnancy is a major contributor to the variation of risk estimates obtained several times in the same pregnancy. Rather, improvements in analytical quality and laboratory management must be expected to result in reduced variation and, in consequence, better performance of screening. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Inaccurate estimation of risk in second trimester serum screening for Down syndrome among women who have already had first trimester screening

Problems can arise in prenatal screening for Down syndrome when tests are performed in the first and second trimester and some women who have a negative first trimester test have a second trimester serum test. The second test result does not usually take account of the previous one being negative. Even if it does, it is often inaccurate. Using published data the extent of the error was examined. The age-specific risk of an affected pregnancy in such women will be lower than if no first trimester test had been performed. The distributions of the screening markers in affected and unaffected pregnancies will be different from those in unscreened women. If the appropriate age-specific risk and marker distributions are not used, error will arise. For example, a 35-year-old woman with nuchal translucency (NT), pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) levels at the normal median would have a risk of 1 in 6500. If she then had the Triple Test with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated oestriol, and hCG levels of 0.7, 0.7 and 1.5 multiples of the median (MoM), respectively, her risk, ignoring the previous result, would be overestimated (1 in 95 compared with the correct estimate of 1 in 705). If the previous result was included, but the age-specific risk and second trimester marker distributions were not revised, her risk would be underestimated (1 in 820). If the correct age-specific risk and screening marker distributions were used, risk estimates would be accurate, but two tests would be less efficient than integrating all the screening information into a single test. The practice of offering second trimester serum screening to women who have already been screened is best avoided. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.