OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of nasal bone (NB), ductus venosus (DV) and tricuspid flow (TF) at the 11-13 weeks' scan, calculate likelihood ratios for each of the markers and evaluate their efficacy in expanded and contingent screening strategies for Down syndrome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: NB, DV and TF were assessed in 11,261 singleton fetuses undergoing first trimester combined screening. For each marker, Down syndrome detection rate (DR), false positive rate (FPR), positive, negative and isolated likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR and iLR) were calculated. Likelihood ratios were multiplied to the combined test risk either to the entire population or to the intermediate risk group (expanded and sequential strategies, respectively). RESULTS: Down syndrome was diagnosed in 101 pregnancies. Feasibility for marker assessment ranged from 71 to 97%, DRs for isolated markers from 20 to 54% and FPRs from 1.3 to 5.3%. PLR ranged from 10 to 15, NLR from 0.5 to 0.8 and iLR from 3.9 to 5.6. When ultrasound markers were added to both strategies, a significant FPR reduction was observed. CONCLUSION: The application of NB, DV and TF likelihood ratios to the combined test risk, either in an expanded or contingent strategy, result in a FPR reduction.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of nasal bone (NB), ductus venosus (DV) and tricuspid flow (TF) at the 11-13 weeks' scan, calculate likelihood ratios for each of the markers and evaluate their efficacy in expanded and contingent screening strategies for Down syndrome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: NB, DV and TF were assessed in 11,261 singleton fetuses undergoing first trimester combined screening. For each marker, Down syndrome detection rate (DR), false positive rate (FPR), positive, negative and isolated likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR and iLR) were calculated. Likelihood ratios were multiplied to the combined test risk either to the entire population or to the intermediate risk group (expanded and sequential strategies, respectively). RESULTS: Down syndrome was diagnosed in 101 pregnancies. Feasibility for marker assessment ranged from 71 to 97%, DRs for isolated markers from 20 to 54% and FPRs from 1.3 to 5.3%. PLR ranged from 10 to 15, NLR from 0.5 to 0.8 and iLR from 3.9 to 5.6. When ultrasound markers were added to both strategies, a significant FPR reduction was observed. CONCLUSION: The application of NB, DV and TF likelihood ratios to the combined test risk, either in an expanded or contingent strategy, result in a FPR reduction.