First trimester screening for Down syndrome and assisted reproduction: no basis for concern

In pregnancies obtained after assisted reproduction the false-positive rate of second trimester Down syndrome (DS) screening is increased by 1.5–3-fold. This may cause an increase in the number of amniocenteses and the fetal loss rate. The present study for the first time examined whether assisted reproductive technologies affect the results of first trimester screening. The markers PAPP-A, free β-hCG and the nuchal translucency (NT) thickness were examined at 12–14 weeks' gestation. Screening markers in 47 in vitro fertilisation (IVF), 63 ovulation induction (OI) and 3026 spontaneously conceived singleton pregnancies were compared. The MoM (multiples of the median) value in the IVF pregnancies was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.85–1.22) for PAPP-A, 1.14 (95% CI: 0.95–1.37) for β-hCG and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.89–1.05) for NT; the MoM value in the OI pregnancies was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.76–1.05) for PAPP-A, 1.08 (95% CI: 0.93–1.25) for β-hCG and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.95–1.11) for NT. The first trimester marker values in assisted reproductive pregnancies and spontaneously conceived pregnancies were not significantly different. Estimated false-positive rates for a risk cut-off of 1:400 varied from 4.7% in IVF pregnancies to 5.1% in OI pregnancies. Therefore the false-positive rate in Down syndrome screening should be independent of the method of conception. Copyright © 2001 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.