Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Uptake of invasive prenatal diagnostic tests in women after detection of soft markers for chromosomal abnormality on ultrasonographic evaluation

Abstract

Objective:

Use of soft ultrasonographic markers during routine prenatal ultrasonography (USG) may be used for the screening of aneuploidy in the low-risk population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of an invasive test for prenatal diagnosis and to assess the role of various factors in the decision-making regarding an invasive test when confronted with risk for aneuploidy after a soft marker is detected on routine antenatal ultrasonogram.

Study design:

Women were referred for USG in our department by primary obstetricians for indications such as a previous child with a congenital malformation, genetic disorder, stillbirth or in women with recurrent spontaneous abortions. Some of the women were referred after prenatal detection of a soft marker on USG. They were screened for soft markers associated with chromosomal abnormality. They were counseled regarding the age-specific risk and the risk of aneuploidy after detection of a marker in comparison to the general population's risk of Down's syndrome. They were also counseled regarding the risk of a procedure-related abortion (0.5%) following an invasive procedure before their decision regarding the use of amniocentesis was made.

Result:

Twenty women out of 50 (40%) opted for amniocentesis. Except in one case of trisomy 21 in a fetus with short femur and humerus, all others had normal karyotype. The uptake of the test was comparable between primigravida (33%), women with poor obstetric history (46%) and women with at least one normal live child (45%). There was no statistical difference in the uptake of invasive test based on gestational age as well. Uptake of amniocentesis was higher (78%) in cases with nuchal thickening as compared to other markers (35%).

Conclusion:

Ultrasonographic detection of soft markers is associated with a high frequency of uptake for invasive prenatal testing. Increased nuchal thickening is associated with a higher acceptance of amniocentesis. Maternal age, gestational age or previous obstetric history were not associated with the decision to undergo amniocentesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith-Bindman R, Hosmer W, Feldstein VA, Deeks JJ, Goldberg JD . Second trimester ultrasound to detect fetuses with Down syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001; 285 (8): 1044–1055.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Benacerraf BR . Ultrasound evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities. In: PW Callen (ed), Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. WB Saunders Company: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2000, pp 38–67.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drugan A, Johnson M, Evans M . Ultrasound screening for fetal chromosome anomalies. Am J Med Genet 2000; 90: 98–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tran LT, Carr DB, Mitsumori LM, Uhrich SB, Shields LE . Second-trimester biparietal diameter/nasal bone length ratio is an independent predictor of trisomy 21. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 805–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelly EN, Allen VM, Seaward G, Windrim R, Ryan G . Mild ventriculomegaly in the fetus, natural history, associated findings and outcome of isolated mild ventriculomegaly: a literature review. Prenat Diagn 2001; 21: 697–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chudleigh T . Mild pylectasis. Prenat Diagn 2001; 21: 936–941.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sotiriadis A, Makrydimas G, Ioannidis JP . Diagnostic performance of intracardiac echogenic foci for Down syndrome: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 1009–1016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Penna L, Bower S . Hyperechogenic bowel in the second trimester fetus: a review. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 909–913.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Walkinshaw SA . Fetal choroid plexus cysts: are we there yet? Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 657–662.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Simon-Bouy B, Satre V, Ferec C, Malinge MC, Giorodon E, Denamur E, the French Collaborative Group et al. Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: a large French Collaborative study of 682 cases. Am J Med Genet 2003; 121A: 209–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nyberg DA, Souter VL, EL-Bastawissi A, Young s, Luthardt F, Luthy DA . Isolated sonographic marker for detection of fetal Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20 (10): 1053–1063.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Biagiotti R, Periti E, Cariati E . Humerus and femur length in fetuses with Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14: 429–434.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Simpson JN, Cook A, Sharland G . The significance of echogenic foci in the fetal heart: a prospective study of 228 cases. Ultrasond Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8 (4): 225–228.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Benacerraf BR . The second trimester with Down syndrome: detection using sonographic features. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 147–155.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Winter TC, Anderson AM, Cheng EY, Komarniski CA, Ulrich SB, Nyberg DA . Echogenic focus in second trimester with trisomy 21: usefulness as a US marker. Radiology 2000; 216 (2): 450–456.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Anderson N, Jyoti R . Relationship of isolated fetal intracardiac echogenic focus to trisomy 21 at the midtrimester sonogram in women younger than 35 years. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21 (4): 354–358.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lamont RF, Havutcu E, Salgia S, Adinkra P, Nicholl R . The association between isolated echogenic cardiac foci on second trimester ultrasound scan and trisomy 21 in low- risk unselected women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23 (4): 346–351.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van den Hof MC, Wilson RD . Fetal soft markers in obstetric ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27 (6): 592–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Phadke SR, Thakur S, Sankar VH . Utility of information brochure as part of pretest counseling for Down syndrome screening: Indian scenario. Perinatology 2005; 7 (4): 176–182.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caughey AB, Lyell DJ, Filly R, Washington AE, Norton ME . The impact of the use of echogenic intracardiac focus as a screen for Down syndrome in women under the age of 35. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 85: 1021–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tran SH, Caughey AB, Norton ME . Ethnic variation in the prevalence of echogenic intracardiac foci and the association with Down syndrome. Ultrsnd Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 158–161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Adam F Borgida, Christine Maffeo, Elisa A Gianferarri, Alan D Bolnick, Carolyn M Zelop, James FX Egan . Frequency of echogenic intracardiac focus by race/ethnicity in euploid fetuses. J Mater-Fetal Neonat Med 2005; 18: 65–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shipp TD, Bromley B, Lieberman E, Benacerraf BR . The frequency of the detection of fetal echogenic intracardiac foci with respect to maternal race. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 460–462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S R Phadke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharda, S., Phadke, S. Uptake of invasive prenatal diagnostic tests in women after detection of soft markers for chromosomal abnormality on ultrasonographic evaluation. J Perinatol 27, 550–555 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211787

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211787

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links