The Genetic Sonogram

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine - Tập 21 Số 10 - Trang 1087-1096 - 2002
Bryann Bromley1, Ellice Lieberman1, Thomas Shipp1, Beryl R. Benacerraf1
1Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston Massachusetts

Tóm tắt

Objective. To determine the risk of Down syndrome in fetuses with sonographic markers using the Bayes theorem and likelihood ratios. Methods. We prospectively evaluated the midtrimester sonographic features of fetuses with Down syndrome and compared them with euploid fetuses. Patients were referred for an increased risk of aneuploidy and evaluated for the presence of structural defects, a nuchal fold, short long bones, pyelectasis, an echogenic intracardiac focus, and hyperechoic bowel. All fetuses underwent amniocentesis at the time of sonographic assessment. The sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for markers were calculated both as nonisolated and isolated findings. Results. There were 164 fetuses with Down syndrome and 656 euploid fetuses. The presence of any marker resulted in sensitivity for the detection of Down syndrome of 80.5% with a false‐positive rate of 12.4%. The absence of any markers conferred a likelihood ratio of 0.2, decreasing the risk of Down syndrome by 80%. As an isolated marker, the nuchal fold had an “infinite” likelihood ratio for Down syndrome; a short humerus had a likelihood ratio of 5.8, whereas structural anomalies had a likelihood ratio of 3.3. Other isolated markers had low likelihood ratios because of the higher prevalence in the unaffected population. The likelihood ratios for the presence of 1, 2, and 3 of any of the markers were 1.9, 6.2, and 80, respectively. Conclusions. Although an isolated marker with a low likelihood ratio may not increase a patient's risk of Down syndrome, the presence of such a marker precludes reducing the risk of aneuploidy. Clusters of markers appear to confer a higher risk.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.7863/jum.1992.11.9.449

10.1148/radiology.193.1.8090881

10.7863/jum.1995.14.4.297

10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.10050321.x

10.7863/jum.1999.18.8.523

1990, Obstet Gynecol, 76, 370

10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.12010008.x

10.7863/jum.2001.20.10.1053

Snijders RJM Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound Markers for Fetal Chromosomal Defects. Carnforth England: Parthenon Publishing; 1996.

10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00227-5

10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00152-X

10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70388-6

10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70036-5

10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70322-4

10.7863/jum.1999.18.7.469

10.7863/jum.2001.20.6.639

10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00203.x

10.1001/jama.285.8.1044

10.1016/0002-9378(87)90227-4

1994, Obstet Gynecol, 84, 844

10.7863/jum.1995.14.3.253

10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00131-2

10.7863/jum.2000.19.1.1

Pauker SG Kassirer JP. Decision analysis. In: Bailar JC III Mosteller R (eds). Medical Uses of Statistics. Boston MA: NEJM Books; 1992:161–162.

Ingelfinger JA Mosteller FR Thibodeau LA Ware JH (eds). Biostatistics in Clinical Medicine. New York NY: Macmillan Publishing Inc; 1983:29–30.

10.1148/radiology.173.2.2529580

10.1097/00006250-199102000-00012

10.1016/0002-9378(85)90385-0

10.1016/0002-9378(85)90588-5

10.1016/S0002-9378(87)80279-X

10.1056/NEJM198711263172203

10.1016/0029-7844(95)00323-J

10.7863/jum.1998.17.2.127

1994, Obstet Gynecol, 83, 647

1990, Obstet Gynecol, 76, 58

1996, ACOG Educ Bull, 228, 603

10.7863/jum.2001.20.6.569

10.1067/mob.2000.105442

2000, BMJ, 321, 763

2000, BMJ, 321, 763

10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00ma36775

10.1148/radiology.184.1.1535162