The Efficiency of First Trimester Screening Test: A Retrospective Study in a Referral Center in Turkey
Download Full-Text Article

Keywords

first trimester screening test
sensitivity
chromosomal anomalies
Down Syndrome

How to Cite

1.
Öcal FD, Soysal Çağanay, Özdemir O, Yılmaz E. The Efficiency of First Trimester Screening Test: A Retrospective Study in a Referral Center in Turkey. Adv Res Obstet Gynaecol [Internet]. 2023 Jul. 25 [cited 2024 Jun. 16];1(1). Available from: https://arogjournal.org/index.php/arog/article/view/7

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effectivity of first trimester screening test applied in in a referral center in Ankara, Turkey.

Materials and Methods: The records of 2015 patients who underwent the first trimester screening test between January 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively screened. We did not take the patients who does not postpartum newborn examination, whose pregnancies resulted as abortion and who did not sustain the routine pregnancy control visits. Invasive diagnostic test was recommended to patients who has high-risk test results. Amniocentesis was applied to the patients who accepted the procedure. We reached the newborn examination results of the patients who did not have amniocentesis result. Amniocentesis was recorded with the patient's new registrar record. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated according to biochemical and combined risks respectively.

Results: According to the combined risk of first trimester screening test, the sensitivity was 80%, specificity was 95.9%, positive predictive value was 6,25% and negative predictive value was 99,9%. Sensitivity was determined as 60%, specificity 88.6%, positive predictive value 1.7% and negative predictive value 99.9% according to biochemical risk.

Conclusions: The first trimester screening test is an effective prenatal test for the detection of chromosomal anomalies. Adding NT measurement to biochemical parameters increases the efficiency of the test significantly.

https://doi.org/10.62093/e2301
Download Full-Text Article

References

(1) Mulvey S, Wallace EM. Women's knowledge of and attitudes to first and second trimester screening for Down's syndrome. BJOG. 2000;107(10):1302-1305. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11624.x

(2) Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, Mansur C, Marks K. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ. 1992;304(6831):867-869. doi:10.1136/bmj.304.6831.867

(3) Pandya PP, Kondylios A, Hilbert L, Snijders RJ, Nicolaides KH. Chromosomal defects and outcome in 1015 fetuses with increased nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5(1):15-19. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05010015.x

(4) Nicolaides KH. Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(1):7-15. doi:10.1002/pd.2637

(5) Chanprapaph P, Dulyakasem C, Phattanchindakun B. Sensitivity of multiple first trimester sonomarkers in fetal aneuploidy detection. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(3):359-365. doi:10.1515/jpm-2014-0201

(6) Liu Y, Ye X, Zhang N, et al. Diagnostic value of ultrasonographic combining biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening in first trimester: a meta-analysis. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(9):879-887. doi:10.1002/pd.4626

(7) Pala HG, Balcı S, Demir N. İlk trimester tarama testi etkinliği; Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tecrübesi. DEÜ Tıp Fak. Dergisi. 2012;3(26):189-193.

(8) Cuckle HS, van Lith JM. Appropriate biochemical parameters in first-trimester screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 1999;19(6):505-512. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0223(199906)19:6<505::aid-pd572>3.0.co;2-6

(9) Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, et al. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(11):1-77. doi:10.3310/hta7110

(10) Bahadırlı A, Davas Nİ. Birinci trimester tarama testi parametrelerinin amniyosentez sonuçlarına göre karşılaştırılması. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni. 2013;4(47):181-186.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2023 Fatma Doğa Öcal, Çağanay Soysal, Oğuz Özdemir, Elif Yılmaz

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.