Antenatal Screening for Chromosomal Abnormalities

Overview

Journal Arch Gynecol Obstet

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2022 Mar 13

PMID 35279726

Authors

Karl Oliver Kagan

Jiri Sonek

Peter Kozlowski

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Screening for chromosomal disorders, especially for trisomy 21, has undergone a number of changes in the last 50 years. Today, cell-free DNA analysis (cfDNA) is the gold standard in screening for trisomy 21. Despite the advantages that cfDNA offers in screening for common trisomies, it must be recognized that it does not address many other chromosomal disorders and any of the structural fetal anomalies. In the first trimester, the optimal approach is to combine an ultrasound assessment of the fetus, which includes an NT measurement, with cfDNA testing. If fetal structural defects are detected or if the NT thickness is increased, an amniocentesis or a CVS with at least chromosomal microarray should be offered.

Citing Articles

Consecutive 5-year outcomes of chorionic villus sampling at a tertiary center.

Kuyucu M, Erdogan K, Adiyaman D, Konuralp Atakul B, Golbasi H, Kutbay Y Medicine (Baltimore). 2025; 104(7):e41582.

PMID: 39960922 PMC: 11835121. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041582.

Improving prenatal diagnosis with combined karyotyping, CNV-seq and QF-PCR: a comprehensive analysis of chromosomal abnormalities in high-risk pregnancies.

Liu J, Wang S, Luo L, Guo Y Front Genet. 2025; 15:1517270.

PMID: 39872004 PMC: 11770095. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1517270.

Impact of a new image enhancement technology on the nuchal translucency thickness.

Elger T, Prodan N, Bettecken K, Sonek J, Kagan K Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025; .

PMID: 39862271 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07924-1.

Genetic correlation between fetal nuchal translucency thickening and cystic hygroma and exploration of pregnancy outcome.

Zheng J, Wang T, Sun H, Guan Y, Yang F, Wu J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27191.

PMID: 39516223 PMC: 11549315. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-76628-y.

Evaluation of the clinical utility of NIPT-plus and analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Zhang L, Chang B, Wang L, Mijiti G, Bahetibieke K, Xue S Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 310(6):2973-2981.

PMID: 39505749 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07811-9.

References

Grati F, Gross S . Noninvasive screening by cell-free DNA for 22q11.2 deletion: Benefits, limitations, and challenges. Prenat Diagn. 2019; 39(2):70-80. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5391. View

Kagan K, Sonek J, Sroka A, Abele H, Wagner P, Prodan N . False-positive rates in screening for trisomies 18 and 13: a comparison between first-trimester combined screening and a cfDNA-based approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 299(2):431-437. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-018-4983-2. View

Kagan K, Sroka F, Sonek J, Abele H, Luthgens K, Schmid M . First-trimester risk assessment based on ultrasound and cell-free DNA vs combined screening: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 51(4):437-444. DOI: 10.1002/uog.18905. View

Badeau M, Lindsay C, Blais J, Nshimyumukiza L, Takwoingi Y, Langlois S . Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 11:CD011767. PMC: 6486016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011767.pub2. View

Bardi F, Bosschieter P, Verheij J, Go A, Haak M, Bekker M . Is there still a role for nuchal translucency measurement in the changing paradigm of first trimester screening?. Prenat Diagn. 2019; 40(2):197-205. PMC: 7027496. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5590. View

Kagan K, Wright D, Nicolaides K . First-trimester contingent screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by fetal nuchal translucency and ductus venosus flow and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 45(1):42-7. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14691. View

Karim J, Bradburn E, Roberts N, Papageorghiou A . First-trimester ultrasound detection of fetal heart anomalies: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 59(1):11-25. PMC: 9305869. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23740. View

Miranda J, Paz Y Mino F, Borobio V, Badenas C, Rodriguez-Revenga L, Pauta M . Should cell-free DNA testing be used in pregnancy with increased fetal nuchal translucency?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 55(5):645-651. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20397. View

Sonek J, Cuckle H . What will be the role of first-trimester ultrasound if cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy becomes routine?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44(6):621-30. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14692. View

10.

Kagan K, Hoopmann M, Pfaff T, Prodan N, Wagner P, Schmid M . First Trimester Screening for Common Trisomies and Microdeletion 22q11.2 Syndrome Using Cell-Free DNA: A Prospective Clinical Study. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2020; 47(11):841-852. DOI: 10.1159/000510069. View

11.

Ren Y, Zhao J, Li R, Xie Y, Jiang S, Zhou H . Noninvasive prenatal test for FGFR3-related skeletal dysplasia based on next-generation sequencing and plasma cell-free DNA: Test performance analysis and feasibility exploration. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38(11):821-828. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5334. View

12.

Maiz N, Kagan K, Milovanovic Z, Celik E, Nicolaides K . Learning curve for Doppler assessment of ductus venosus flow at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 31(5):503-6. DOI: 10.1002/uog.5282. View

13.

Karim J, Roberts N, Salomon L, Papageorghiou A . Systematic review of first-trimester ultrasound screening for detection of fetal structural anomalies and factors that affect screening performance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 50(4):429-441. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17246. View

14.

Bevilacqua E, Jani J, Chaoui R, Suk E, Palma-Dias R, Ko T . Performance of a targeted cell-free DNA prenatal test for 22q11.2 deletion in a large clinical cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 58(4):597-602. PMC: 8518527. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23699. View

15.

Maya I, Yacobson S, Kahana S, Yeshaya J, Tenne T, Agmon-Fishman I . Cut-off value of nuchal translucency as indication for chromosomal microarray analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50(3):332-335. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17421. View

16.

Hui L, Pynaker C, Bonacquisto L, Lindquist A, Poulton A, Kluckow E . Reexamining the optimal nuchal translucency cutoff for diagnostic testing in the cell-free DNA and microarray era: results from the Victorian Perinatal Record Linkage study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 225(5):527.e1-527.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.050. View

17.

Kagan K, Wright D, Etchegaray A, Zhou Y, Nicolaides K . Effect of deviation of nuchal translucency measurements on the performance of screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 33(6):657-64. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6370. View

18.

Kagan K, Sonek J, Wagner P, Hoopmann M . Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for other major defects and pregnancy complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 296(4):635-643. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-017-4460-3. View

19.

Lindquist A, Poulton A, Halliday J, Hui L . Prenatal diagnostic testing and atypical chromosome abnormalities following combined first-trimester screening: implications for contingent models of non-invasive prenatal testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 51(4):487-492. DOI: 10.1002/uog.18979. View

20.

Kagan K, Avgidou K, Molina F, Gajewska K, Nicolaides K . Relation between increased fetal nuchal translucency thickness and chromosomal defects. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(1):6-10. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000191301.63871.c6. View