Search

Background: Multiple marker screening is offered to pregnant individuals in many jurisdictions to screen for trisomies 21 and 18. On occasion, the result is 'double-positive'-a screening result that is unexpectedly positive for both aneuploidies. Although this occurs rarely, the paucity of available evidence about the outcomes of these pregnancies hinders patient counselling. This study aimed to investigate the association of double-positive results with preterm birth and other adverse perinatal outcomes., Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of pregnancies with an estimated date of delivery from September 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, using province-wide perinatal registry data in Ontario, Canada. Pregnancies with double-positive screening results where trisomies 21 and 18 were ruled-out were compared to pregnancies with screen negative results for both aneuploidies. We used modified Poisson regression models with robust variance estimation to examine the association of double positive results with preterm birth and secondary outcomes., Results: From 429 540 pregnancies with multiple marker screening, 863 (0.2%) had a double-positive result; trisomies 21 and 18 were ruled out in 374 pregnancies, 203 of which resulted in a live birth. Among the pregnancies in the double-positive group resulting in a live birth, the risk of preterm birth was increased compared to pregnancies with a screen negative result: adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.6 (95%CI 2.0-3.6), adjusted risk difference (aRD) 10.5% (95%CI 5.4-15.7). In a sensitivity analysis excluding all diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities, the risk of preterm birth remained elevated to a similar degree: aRR 2.6 (95%CI 1.9-3.7), aRD 10.0% (95%CI 4.8-15.3). The risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes was also higher, including the risk of chromosomal abnormalities other than trisomies 21 and 18: aRR 81.1 (95%CI 69.4-94.8), aRD 34.0% (95%CI 29.2-38.8). Pregnancies with double-positive results were also less likely to result in a live birth, even when excluding all diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities; and at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes for those resulting in a live birth., Conclusion: Although rare, double-positive multiple marker screening results are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and other adverse perinatal outcomes, even when excluding all identified chromosomal abnormalities., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Ultrasonographic measurement of fetal nuchal translucency is used in prenatal screening for trisomies 21 and 18 and other conditions. A cutoff of 3.5 mm or greater is commonly used to offer follow-up investigations, such as prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening or cytogenetic testing. Recent studies showed a possible association with chromosomal anomalies for levels less than 3.5 mm, but extant evidence has limitations., Objective: To evaluate the association between different nuchal translucency measurements and cytogenetic outcomes on a population level., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study used data from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network, the perinatal registry for Ontario, Canada. All singleton pregnancies with an estimated date of delivery from September 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, were included. Data were analyzed from March 17 to August 14, 2023., Exposures: Nuchal translucency measurements were identified through multiple-marker screening results., Main Outcomes and Measures: Chromosomal anomalies were identified through all Ontario laboratory-generated prenatal and postnatal cytogenetic tests. Cytogenetic testing results, supplemented with information from cfDNA screening and clinical examination at birth, were used to identify pregnancies without chromosomal anomalies. Multivariable modified Poisson regression with robust variance estimation and adjustment for gestational age was used to compare cytogenetic outcomes for pregnancies with varying nuchal translucency measurement categories and a reference group with nuchal translucency less than 2.0 mm., Results: Of 414 268 pregnancies included in the study (mean [SD] maternal age at estimated delivery date, 31.5 [4.7] years), 359 807 (86.9%) had a nuchal translucency less than 2.0 mm; the prevalence of chromosomal anomalies in this group was 0.5%. An increased risk of chromosomal anomalies was associated with increasing nuchal translucency measurements, with an adjusted risk ratio (ARR) of 20.33 (95% CI, 17.58-23.52) and adjusted risk difference (ARD) of 9.94% (95% CI, 8.49%-11.39%) for pregnancies with measurements of 3.0 to less than 3.5 mm. The ARR was 4.97 (95% CI, 3.45-7.17) and the ARD was 1.40% (95% CI, 0.77%-2.04%) when restricted to chromosomal anomalies beyond the commonly screened aneuploidies (excluding trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 414 268 singleton pregnancies, those with nuchal translucency measurements less than 2.0 mm were at the lowest risk of chromosomal anomalies. Risk increased with increasing measurements, including measurements less than 3.5 mm and anomalies not routinely screened by many prenatal genetic screening programs.

Background: Maternal serum markers used for trisomy 21 screening are associated with placenta-mediated complications. Recently, there has been a transition from the traditional first-trimester screening (FTS) that included PAPP-A (pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A) and beta-hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin), to the enhanced FTS test, which added first-trimester AFP (alpha-fetoprotein) and PlGF (placental growth factor). However, whether elevated first-trimester AFP has a similar association with placenta-mediated complications to that observed for elevated second-trimester AFP remains unclear. Our objective was to estimate the association of first-trimester AFP with placenta-mediated complications and compare it with the corresponding associations of second-trimester AFP and other first-trimester serum markers., Methods: Retrospective population-based cohort study of women who underwent trisomy 21 screening in Ontario, Canada (2013-2019). The association of first-trimester AFP with placenta-mediated complications was estimated and compared with that of the traditional serum markers. The primary outcome was a composite of stillbirth or preterm placental complications (preeclampsia, birthweight less than third centile, or placental abruption)., Results: A total of 244 990 and 96 167 women underwent FTS and enhanced FTS test screening, respectively. All markers were associated with the primary outcome, but the association for elevated first-trimester AFP (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.57 [95% CI, 1.37-1.81]) was weaker than that observed for low PAPP-A (aRR, 2.48 [95% CI, 2.2-2.8]), low PlGF (aRR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.97-2.64]), and elevated second-trimester AFP (aRR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.81-2.15]). When the models were adjusted for all 4 enhanced FTS test markers, elevated first-trimester AFP was no longer associated with the primary outcome (aRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.58-1.02])., Conclusions: Unlike second-trimester AFP, elevated first-trimester AFP is not an independent risk factor for placenta-mediated complications., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Cell-free fetal DNA screening is routinely offered to pregnant individuals to screen for aneuploidies. Although cell-free DNA screening is consistently more accurate than multiple-marker screening, it sometimes fails to yield a result. These test failures and their clinical implications are poorly described in the literature. Some studies suggest that a failed cell-free DNA screening result is associated with increased likelihood of cytogenetic abnormalities., Objective: This study aimed to assess the association between a failed cell-free DNA test and common aneuploidies. The objectives were to determine: (1) the proportion of test failures on first and subsequent attempts, and (2) whether a failed cell-free DNA screen on first attempt is associated with increased likelihood of common aneuploidies (trisomies 21, 18, and 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidies)., Study Design: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from Ontario's prescribed maternal and child registry, Better Outcomes Registry and Network Ontario. The study included all singleton pregnancies in Ontario with an estimated date of delivery from September 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019 that had a cell-free DNA screening record in the registry. Specific outcomes (trisomies 21, 18, and 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidies) of pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screen on first attempt were compared with those of pregnancies with low-risk cell-free DNA-screening results using modified Poisson regression adjusted for funding status (publicly funded vs self-paid), gestational age at screening, method of conception, and maternal age for autosomal aneuploidies., Results: Our cohort included 35,146 pregnancies that had cell-free DNA screening during the study period. The overall cell-free DNA screening failure rate was 4.8% on first attempt and 2.2% after multiple attempts. An abnormal cytogenetic result for trisomies 21, 18, and 13, or sex chromosome aneuploidies was identified in 19.4% of pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screening for which cytogenetic testing was performed. Pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screen on first attempt had a relative risk of 130.3 (95% confidence interval, 64.7-262.6) for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, or trisomy 13, and a risk difference of 5.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.6-8.3), compared with pregnancies with a low-risk result. The risk of sex chromosome aneuploidies was not significantly greater in pregnancies with a failed result compared with pregnancies with a low-risk result (relative risk, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-7.9; relative difference, 1.2%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 3.2)., Conclusion: Cell-free DNA screening test failures are relatively common. Although repeated testing improves the likelihood of an informative result, pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screen upon first attempt remain at increased risk for common autosomal aneuploidies, but not sex chromosome aneuploidies., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The concentrations of maternal serum markers for aneuploidy screening are influenced by maternal characteristics such as race, smoking, insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Accurate risk estimation requires adjustment of initial values for these characteristics. This study aims to update and validate adjustment factors for race, smoking, and IDDM., Methods: The study included singleton pregnancies that received multiple marker screening in Ontario, Canada between January 2012, and December 2018, and had their information collected in the Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario. Serum markers assessed included first trimester pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), free β and total human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), placental growth factor (PlGF) and αlpha-fetoprotein (AFP); second trimester AFP, unconjugated estriol (uE3), total hCG and inhibin A. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the differences in the median multiple of the median (MoM) of serum markers between study and reference groups. New adjustment factors were generated by dividing the median MoM of a particular race, individuals who smoke tobacco, or have IDDM by those of the reference groups., Results: The study included 624,789 pregnancies. There were statistically significant differences in serum marker concentrations among pregnant individuals who were Black, Asian, or First Nations compared to a White group, those who smoked compared to Non-smoking individuals, and those with IDDM compared to Non-IDDM group. New adjustment factors for race, smoking, and IDDM were validated by comparing median MoM of serum markers corrected using the current adjustment factors and new adjustment factors generated in this study., Conclusion: The adjustment factors generated in this study can adjust the effects of race, smoking, and IDDM on serum markers more accurately., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to investigate the accuracy of IVF identification on the prenatal screening record from prenatal screening laboratories; (2) to compare the screening markers in IVF and non-IVF pregnancies in the population of Ontario; and (3) to propose more appropriate IVF adjustment factors for the Ontario population., Methods: Two years of IVF treatment, data from all fertility clinics in Ontario were merged with the corresponding prenatal screening data from all five prenatal screening labs. New adjustment factors for IVF were developed for each maternal serum screening marker and nuchal translucency measurement. Means and SDs and linear regression models were reported for all prenatal screening records, as well as for records that had IVF identified through the prenatal screening requisition and records that were identified through the Canadian Assisted Reproductive Technologies Register (CARTR) Plus database., Results: Significant differences between IVF and non-IVF groups on the basis of the prenatal screening requisition information and CARTR Plus information were found among the ethnicity-adjusted mean multiple of the medians for alpha fetoprotein, first trimester pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, second trimester unconjugated estradiol, first trimester human chorionic gonadotropin, total human chorionic gonadotropin, and dimeric inhibin A., Conclusion: This study proposed alternate IVF adjustment factors that will produce more accurate screening results within the population of Ontario., (Copyright © 2018 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Prenatal screening for trisomy 21 is a standard of care. Emerging cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) technologies can improve screening performance, but they are expensive. This study was conducted to propose a contingent screening model that would incorporate cffDNA technology, would remain affordable, and could be applied equitably in a publically funded system., Methods: Using performance and cost parameters from published literature, four prenatal screening strategies were compared. Scenario 1 modelled integrated prenatal screening (first trimester nuchal translucency and biochemical markers from both the first and second trimesters) with no cffDNA. Scenarios 2 and 3 modelled first trimester combined screening (FTS) and "enhanced FTS" (adding serum placental growth factor and alpha fetoprotein to FTS), respectively, with contingent cffDNA following a positive result. Scenario 4 modelled cffDNA as the primary screening test., Results: Scenario 1 provides a known detection rate (DR) of 88%, with a false positive rate (FPR) of 3.3%. Scenarios 2 and 3 result in a DR of 94% and overall FPR of 0.59% and 0.33%, respectively, comparable to the DR of 96% and FPR of 0.1% with primary cffDNA (assuming the published test failure rate of 3%). The total cost, cost per woman screened, and cost per case of trisomy 21 detected were lower with scenario 3 (enhanced FTS with contingent cffDNA) compared with primary cffDNA or scenario 2 (FTS with contingent cffDNA)., Conclusion: Enhanced FTS with contingent cffDNA following a positive result provides a similar performance to that of primary cffDNA at a substantially lower cost., (Copyright © 2017 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the cost and performance implications of introducing cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing within modeled scenarios in a publicly funded Canadian provincial Down syndrome (DS) prenatal screening program., Method: Two clinical algorithms were created: the first to represent the current screening program and the second to represent one that incorporates cffDNA testing. From these algorithms, eight distinct scenarios were modeled to examine: (1) the current program (no cffDNA), (2) the current program with first trimester screening (FTS) as the nuchal translucency-based primary screen (no cffDNA), (3) a program substituting current screening with primary cffDNA, (4) contingent cffDNA with current FTS performance, (5) contingent cffDNA at a fixed price to result in overall cost neutrality,(6) contingent cffDNA with an improved detection rate (DR) of FTS, (7) contingent cffDNA with higher uptake of FTS, and (8) contingent cffDNA with optimized FTS (higher uptake and improved DR)., Results: This modeling study demonstrates that introducing contingent cffDNA testing improves performance by increasing the number of cases of DS detected prenatally, and reducing the number of amniocenteses performed and concomitant iatrogenic pregnancy loss of pregnancies not affected by DS. Costs are modestly increased, although the cost per case of DS detected is decreased with contingent cffDNA testing., Conclusion: Contingent models of cffDNA testing can improve overall screening performance while maintaining the provision of an 11- to 13-week scan. Costs are modestly increased, but cost per prenatally detected case of DS is decreased., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess the quantitative impact of maternal weight discrepancy on the screen result for Down syndrome when using Integrated Prenatal Screening and First Trimester Combined Screening., Methods: The study population consisted of 78,165 women undergoing prenatal screening in Ontario, Canada, and 158 pregnancies affected with Down syndrome at one Ontario center. The study assessed quantitative alterations of the multiple of the median values of first and second-trimester serum markers and the risks of Down syndrome at a set of theoretical weight discrepancies., Results: Weight discrepancies have the greatest impact on screening results when the initial risk is close to the risk cut-off. When the weight discrepancy is 5 lb or greater and the denominator of the initial risk is within 50 of the risk cut-off, the chance that a screen result will change from positive to negative or from negative to positive is 47-55% for women undertaking Integrated Prenatal Screening. This chance is 33-43% for women undertaking First Trimester Combined Screening., Conclusion: A weight discrepancy of five or more pounds has a significant impact on the risk of Down syndrome; correction of maternal weight would improve the accuracy of the screening test., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of integrated prenatal screening (IPS) and first trimester combined screening (FTS) for trisomy 21 in a large Canadian urban center., Method: Prospective data collection on women having FTS at one center from 1 November 2003 to 31 December 2005, or IPS at another from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005. A positive screen was defined as adjusted risk for trisomy 21 >or= 1/200 at term or nuchal translucency >or= 3.5 mm., Results: 32 227 and 14 487 women were screened in the IPS and FTS programs, respectively. Detection rates (DRs) and positive rates (PRs) for trisomy 21 were 88.4% (95% CI: 81.6-91.5) and 3.3% (95% CI: 3.1-3.5) for IPS, and 83.9% (95% CI: 74.7-93.0) and 4.0% (95% CI: 3.7-4.3) for FTS. DR adjusted for viability bias was 85.2% for IPS and 78.6% for FTS. Applying both the screens to the 78 134 women who submitted prenatal screens in Ontario in 2005, thereby eliminating the effect of differences in the distribution of maternal age between screens, gave a DR (corrected for viability bias) and PR of 81 and 3.1% for IPS, and 76 and 3.4% for FTS., Conclusions: Both IPS and FTS perform well and are feasible in a practical clinical setting.