Literature DB >> 16821246

Sequential and contingent prenatal screening for Down syndrome.

Nicholas J Wald1, Alicja R Rudnicka, Jonathan P Bestwick.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Integrated test in three policies for prenatal Down syndrome screening: Integrated screening for all women, sequential screening (first-trimester tests allowing early completion of screening for high-risk pregnancies), and Contingent screening (early completion of screening for high- and low-risk pregnancies). DESIGN AND METHODS: Estimation of detection rates (DRs) and false-positive rates (FPRs) using Monte Carlo simulation and cost effectiveness for each method. SETTING AND POPULATION: Down syndrome affected and unaffected pregnancies studied in the Serum Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). RESULTS AND MAIN OUTCOMES: Integrated screening has the best screening performance. The performance of the other two policies approached that of Integrated screening as the first-trimester test FPR decreased. If the first-trimester FPR is set to 0.5% (risk >or= 1 in 30) with an overall DR of 90%, sequential and contingent screening yield overall FPRs of 2.25% and 2.42%, respectively, and 66% of the affected pregnancies are detected by the first-trimester test. The Integrated test on all women yields an FPR of 2.15%. With sequential screening, 99.5% of women would proceed to an Integrated test, or 30% with contingent screening if those with first-trimester test risks of <or=1 in 2000 are classified screen-negative and receive no further testing. About 20% of affected pregnancies identified in the first trimester using sequential or contingent screening would have unnecessary terminations (they would miscarry before the early second trimester). Contingent screening is the most cost-effective if there is no alphafetoprotein screening for neural tube defects, otherwise Integrated screening is more cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrated screening for all women is the simplest, most effective, and the safest policy. Contingent screening is the most complex with the lowest screening performance. Making an earlier diagnosis with sequential and contingent screening has adverse consequences that are sufficient to discourage their use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16821246     DOI: 10.1002/pd.1498

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  8 in total

Review 1.  First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening.

Authors:  S Kate Alldred; Yemisi Takwoingi; Boliang Guo; Mary Pennant; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-15

Review 2.  First and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening.

Authors:  S Kate Alldred; Yemisi Takwoingi; Boliang Guo; Mary Pennant; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-15

3.  Prospective experience with contingent screening strategy for Down syndrome in Estonia.

Authors:  Kai Muru; Mari Sitska; Karin Asser; Aivar Ehrenberg; Helle Karro; Katrin Ounap; Tiia Reimand
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-10-02

Review 4.  Second trimester serum tests for Down's Syndrome screening.

Authors:  S Kate Alldred; Jonathan J Deeks; Boliang Guo; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-06-13

5.  Rapid testing versus karyotyping in Down's syndrome screening: cost-effectiveness and detection of clinically significant chromosome abnormalities.

Authors:  Jean Gekas; David-Gradus van den Berg; Audrey Durand; Maud Vallée; Hajo Izaäk Johannes Wildschut; Emmanuel Bujold; Jean-Claude Forest; François Rousseau; Daniel Reinharz
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  First trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening.

Authors:  S Kate Alldred; Yemisi Takwoingi; Boliang Guo; Mary Pennant; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-11-30

Review 7.  Urine tests for Down's syndrome screening.

Authors:  S Kate Alldred; Boliang Guo; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mary Pennant; Susanna Wisniewski; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-12-10

8.  Comparison of different strategies in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: cost effectiveness analysis of computer simulation.

Authors:  Jean Gekas; Geneviève Gagné; Emmanuel Bujold; Daniel Douillard; Jean-Claude Forest; Daniel Reinharz; François Rousseau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-02-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.