30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In all, 80% of antenatal karyotypes are generated by Down's syndrome screening programmes (DSSP). After a positive screening, women are offered prenatal foetus karyotyping, the gold standard. Reliable molecular methods for rapid aneuploidy diagnosis (RAD: fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and quantitative fluorescence PCR (QF-PCR)) can detect common aneuploidies, and are faster and less expensive than karyotyping.

          In the UK, RAD is recommended as a standalone approach in DSSP, whereas the US guidelines recommend that RAD be followed up by karyotyping. A cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of RAD in various DSSP is lacking. There is a debate over the significance of chromosome abnormalities (CA) detected with karyotyping but not using RAD. Our objectives were to compare the CE of RAD versus karyotyping, to evaluate the clinically significant missed CA and to determine the impact of detecting the missed CA. We performed computer simulations to compare six screening options followed by FISH, PCR or karyotyping using a population of 110 948 pregnancies. Among the safer screening strategies, the most cost-effective strategy was contingent screening with QF-PCR (CE ratio of $24 084 per Down's syndrome (DS) detected). Using karyotyping, the CE ratio increased to $27 898. QF-PCR missed only six clinically significant CA of which only one was expected to confer a high risk of an abnormal outcome. The incremental CE ratio (ICER) to find the CA missed by RAD was $66 608 per CA. These costs are much higher than those involved for detecting DS cases. As the DSSP are mainly designed for DS detection, it may be relevant to question the additional costs of karyotyping.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome.

          It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters. Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement of alpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency). First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening. First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection of Down's syndrome, with low false positive rates. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down's syndrome

            Objective To ‘map’ the current (2004) state of prenatal screening in Europe. Design (i) Survey of country policies and (ii) analysis of data from EUROCAT (European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies) population-based congenital anomaly registers. Setting Europe. Population Survey of prenatal screening policies in 18 countries and 1.13 million births in 12 countries in 2002–04. Methods (i) Questionnaire on national screening policies and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) laws in 2004. (ii) Analysis of data on prenatal detection and termination for Down's syndrome and neural tube defects (NTDs) using the EUROCAT database. Main outcome measures Existence of national prenatal screening policies, legal gestation limit for TOPFA, prenatal detection and termination rates for Down's syndrome and NTD. Results Ten of the 18 countries had a national country-wide policy for Down's syndrome screening and 14/18 for structural anomaly scanning. Sixty-eight percent of Down's syndrome cases (range 0–95%) were detected prenatally, of which 88% resulted in termination of pregnancy. Eighty-eight percent (range 25–94%) of cases of NTD were prenatally detected, of which 88% resulted in termination. Countries with a first-trimester screening policy had the highest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down's syndrome cases. Countries with no official national Down's syndrome screening or structural anomaly scan policy had the lowest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down's syndrome and NTD cases. Six of the 18 countries had a legal gestational age limit for TOPFA, and in two countries, termination of pregnancy was illegal at any gestation. Conclusions There are large differences in screening policies between countries in Europe. These, as well as organisational and cultural factors, are associated with wide country variation in prenatal detection rates for Down's syndrome and NTD. Please cite this paper as: Boyd P, DeVigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, and the EUROCAT working group. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. BJOG 2008;115:689–696.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimates of the frequency of chromosome abnormalities detectable in unselected newborns using moderate levels of banding.

              Data on structural chromosome abnormalities identified during prenatal diagnosis were used to estimate the number of such abnormalities that would be detectable in an unselected series of newborns using moderate levels of banding (400 to 500 bands). These estimates were compared with the rates detected in nonbanded surveys of newborns. Between 1976 and 1990 prenatal diagnosis using banding techniques was carried out in our laboratory on 14,677 women aged 35 and over. Among these, we detected 112 structural rearrangements, 32 unbalanced and 80 balanced. These figures were adjusted by two methods to give an estimate of the frequency of structural abnormalities in the newborn. Our data suggest that the use of moderate levels of banding increases the frequency of unbalanced structural abnormalities from 0.052 to 0.061% and of balanced structural abnormalities from 0.212 to 0.522%. Thus, the total number of chromosome abnormalities detectable in the newborn is increased from 0.60% in unbanded preparations to 0.92% in banded preparations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Hum Genet
                European Journal of Human Genetics
                Nature Publishing Group
                1018-4813
                1476-5438
                January 2011
                15 September 2010
                1 January 2011
                : 19
                : 1
                : 3-9
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre de recherche du CHUQ, Service de Génétique Médicale, Unité de Diagnostic Prénatal, Département de pédiatrie, Université Laval , Québec City, Québec, Canada
                [2 ]Laboratoire de Cytogénétique, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CHUQ), Département de biologie mé dicale , Québec City, Québec, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center , Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Laboratoire de Simulations des Dépistages, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval , Québec City, Québec, Canada
                [5 ]Département d′obstétrique-gynécologie, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval , Québec City, Québec, Canada
                [6 ]Centre de recherche du CHUQ, Département de biologie médicale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval , Québec City, Québec, Canada
                [7 ]CanGèneTest Research consortium, Centre de recherche du CHUQ, Département de biologie médicale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval , Québec City, Québec, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Centre Hospitalier de l'Université Laval (CHUL), 2705, boulevard Laurier, bureau RC-9300, Sainte-Foy , Québec city, Québec G1V 4G2, Canada. Tel: +1 418 5254444 ext: 48114; Fax: +1 418 6542748; E-mail: jean.gekas@ 123456mail.chuq.qc.ca
                Article
                ejhg2010138
                10.1038/ejhg.2010.138
                3039505
                20842178
                5288ff5d-6649-4e76-b0d2-b0c46729f2ce
                Copyright © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

                History
                : 26 March 2010
                : 22 June 2010
                : 09 July 2010
                Categories
                Article

                Genetics
                down's syndrome,chromosome abnormalities,prenatal diagnosis
                Genetics
                down's syndrome, chromosome abnormalities, prenatal diagnosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article