Cargando…

Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned

Background and Objectives: Here, we performed a descriptive analysis of Down syndrome (DS) cases that were misdiagnosed and/or false-negative diagnosed after first trimester traditional screening via risk evaluation using ultrasound, biochemical markers, and different software programs. Our objectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Simionescu, Anca Angela, Stanescu, Ana Maria Alexandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7230628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32340394
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56040199
_version_ 1783534999081844736
author Simionescu, Anca Angela
Stanescu, Ana Maria Alexandra
author_facet Simionescu, Anca Angela
Stanescu, Ana Maria Alexandra
author_sort Simionescu, Anca Angela
collection PubMed
description Background and Objectives: Here, we performed a descriptive analysis of Down syndrome (DS) cases that were misdiagnosed and/or false-negative diagnosed after first trimester traditional screening via risk evaluation using ultrasound, biochemical markers, and different software programs. Our objective was to demonstrate the clear need to improve the application of prenatal DS screening programs using standardized ultrasound measurements, accurate pregnancy dating, analytical immunoassay performance, and properly selected medians. Materials and Methods: We performed a database search for the period 2010–2015 to analyze DS cases that were false-negative diagnosed after the first trimester of pregnancy, before the introduction of cell free fetal DNA-based tests by Romanian laboratories in 2015. First-trimester screening was performed using two software programs for prenatal DS risk calculation: Astraia and Prisca. The rationale for using both software programs was to assess the full risk using the maternal age combined test (based on nuchal translucency thickness, nasal bone, ductus venosus flow, tricuspid flow, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin level, and serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A) and, in some cases, the triple test. Results: We identified seven DS cases that exhibited low risk for trisomy 21, and 6540 cases with a low risk for trisomy 21 and euploid fetus in the first trimester. Using Astraia software, 14 cases were diagnosed, and three cases were missed after risk calculation. Using Prisca software, four cases were missed. Additionally, one neonate had a missed prenatal diagnosis of atrio-ventricular canal defect. Conclusion: In Romania, the evaluation of DS risk depends on patient choice (without knowing the accuracy of the utilized tests) and on the operators’ skills. Both Astraia and Prisca software were developed by experts, who can prove their performance in DS screening. However, even in an ideal situation, false-negative results are possible. The application of first and second-trimester combined screening based on biochemical markers could be improved by the implementation of standardized protocols, professional guidelines for test application, and audit control.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7230628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72306282020-05-22 Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned Simionescu, Anca Angela Stanescu, Ana Maria Alexandra Medicina (Kaunas) Article Background and Objectives: Here, we performed a descriptive analysis of Down syndrome (DS) cases that were misdiagnosed and/or false-negative diagnosed after first trimester traditional screening via risk evaluation using ultrasound, biochemical markers, and different software programs. Our objective was to demonstrate the clear need to improve the application of prenatal DS screening programs using standardized ultrasound measurements, accurate pregnancy dating, analytical immunoassay performance, and properly selected medians. Materials and Methods: We performed a database search for the period 2010–2015 to analyze DS cases that were false-negative diagnosed after the first trimester of pregnancy, before the introduction of cell free fetal DNA-based tests by Romanian laboratories in 2015. First-trimester screening was performed using two software programs for prenatal DS risk calculation: Astraia and Prisca. The rationale for using both software programs was to assess the full risk using the maternal age combined test (based on nuchal translucency thickness, nasal bone, ductus venosus flow, tricuspid flow, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin level, and serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A) and, in some cases, the triple test. Results: We identified seven DS cases that exhibited low risk for trisomy 21, and 6540 cases with a low risk for trisomy 21 and euploid fetus in the first trimester. Using Astraia software, 14 cases were diagnosed, and three cases were missed after risk calculation. Using Prisca software, four cases were missed. Additionally, one neonate had a missed prenatal diagnosis of atrio-ventricular canal defect. Conclusion: In Romania, the evaluation of DS risk depends on patient choice (without knowing the accuracy of the utilized tests) and on the operators’ skills. Both Astraia and Prisca software were developed by experts, who can prove their performance in DS screening. However, even in an ideal situation, false-negative results are possible. The application of first and second-trimester combined screening based on biochemical markers could be improved by the implementation of standardized protocols, professional guidelines for test application, and audit control. MDPI 2020-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7230628/ /pubmed/32340394 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56040199 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Simionescu, Anca Angela
Stanescu, Ana Maria Alexandra
Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned
title Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned
title_full Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned
title_fullStr Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned
title_full_unstemmed Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned
title_short Missed Down Syndrome Cases after First Trimester False-Negative Screening—Lessons to be Learned
title_sort missed down syndrome cases after first trimester false-negative screening—lessons to be learned
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7230628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32340394
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56040199
work_keys_str_mv AT simionescuancaangela misseddownsyndromecasesafterfirsttrimesterfalsenegativescreeninglessonstobelearned
AT stanescuanamariaalexandra misseddownsyndromecasesafterfirsttrimesterfalsenegativescreeninglessonstobelearned