Journal of Applied Genetics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 177–185 | Cite as

Ultrasound diagnostic schema for the determination of increased risk for chromosomal fetal aneuploidies in the first half of pregnancy

  • Piotr Sieroszewski
  • Małgorzata Perenc
  • Elżbieta Baś-Budecka
  • Jacek Suzin


The aim of the study was to develop an early ultrasound diagnostic schema for the determination of increased risk for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. The study was conducted on a population of 1318 pregnant women divided into 2 groups: 1255 women with the normal course of pregnancy and 63 women with diagnosed fetal abnormalities. There were 34 cases of chromosomal abnormalities (trisomy 21,18,13; triploidy; unbalanced inversion 9; deletion 16) and 29 cases of structural malformations. The estimation of the range of normal values was performed for the nuchal translucency (NT) measurement between 11 and 13 weeks and the nasal bone length (NB) measurement between 12 and 20 week. The results obtained in the collective set of normal pregnancies constituted the basis for the calculation of the range of normal values. The measurements of NB and NT showed a linear value increase with the pregnancy course. The following test characteristics (correlation to CRL) were recorded: NB — sensitivity 60%, specificity 98%, positive predictive value (PPV+) 43%, negative predictive value (NPV−) 98.9%. For the assumption that the test outcome means the presence or absence of the nasal bone in the ultrasound scan the sensitivity was 40%, but specificity 100%; NT — sensitivity 63.6%, specificity 98.2%, PPV+ 38.9%, NPV — 98.2%; NT + NB — presents similar characteristic to the NB or NT alone — sensitivity 55.6%, specificity 98.6%, PPV+ 50%, NPV — 98.9%. The following test characteristics for chromosomal aberration markers (correlation to BPD) were observed: NB — sensitivity 68.4%, specificity 97.4%, PPV+ 56.5%, NPV — 98.4%; NT — sensitivity 73.9%, specificity 97.9%, PPV+ 54.8%, NPV− 99.2%; NT + NB − sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 98.9%, PPV+ 90%, NPV — 99.7%, respectively. The “genetic sonogram” protocol for the structural defect detection was analysed: sensitivity was 80%, specificity 100%, PPV+ 100%, NPV — 99.7%. It is concluded that the new biometric parameter— nasal bone length (NB) and the corrected one — nuchal translucency thickness (NT) are useful markers for fetal abnormalities, especially for chromosomal aberrations. High predictive values of the diagnostic schema for the detection of aneuploidies and structural defects indicate that its application in correlation with the biparietal diameter (BPD) is highly recommended. The proposed schema is an effective algorithm for prenatal diagnostics characterised by high prognostic values. The possible introduction of the schema could result in a decrease of the invasive procedure rates, which could minimise the rate of miscarriages as a complication of amniocenteses.

Key words

chromosomal aberrations nasal bone nuchal translucency ultrasound scan 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benaceraff BR, Frigoletto FD, Laboda LA, 1985. Sonographic diagnosis of Down syndrome in the second trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol 153: 49–52.Google Scholar
  2. Bewley S, Roberts LJ, Mackinson M, et al. 1995. First trimester fetal nuchal translucency: problems with screening general population. BJOG 102: 386–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braithwaite JM, Kadir RA, Pepera TA, et al. 1996. Nuchal translucency measurement: training of potential examiners. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol 8: 192–195.Google Scholar
  4. Braithwaite JM, Morris RW, Economides DL, 1996. Nuchal translucency measurements: frequency distribution and changes with gestation in a general population. Br J Obstet Gynecol 103: 1201–1204.Google Scholar
  5. Brambati B, Cislaghi C, Tului L, et al. 1995. First trimester Down’s syndrome screening using nuchal translucency: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5: 9–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bromley B, Liebermann E, Shipp T, et al. 2002. Fetal nose bone length. J Ultrasound Med 21: 1387–1394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bromley B, Lieberman E, Shipp TD, et al. 2002. The genetic sonogram. A method of risk assessment for Down syndrome in the second trimester. J Ultrasound Med 21: 1087–1096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunduki V, Ruano R, Migelez J, et al. 2003. Fetal nasal bone length: reference range and clinical application in ultrasound screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 156–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cicero S, Curcio P, Papageorghiou A, et al. 2001. Absence of nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11–14 weeks of gestation: an observational study. Lancet 358: 9294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cicero S, Sonek JD, McKenna DS, et al. 2003. Nasal bone hypoplasia in trisomy 21 at 15–22 weeks gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 15–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuckle H, 2001. Time for total shift to first-trimester screening for Down’s syndrome. The Lancet 358: 9294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert R, Augood C, Gupta R, et al. 2001. Screening for Down’s syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies. BMJ 323: 423–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. von Kaisenberg CS, Brand-Saberi B, Christ B, et al. 1998. Collagen type VI gene expression in the skin of trisomy 21 foetuses. Obstet Gynecol 91: 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keeling JW, Hansen BF, Kjaer I, 1997. Pattern of malformations in the axial skeleton in human trisomy 21 foetuses. Am J Med Genet 68: 466–471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kornman LH, Morssink LP, Beekhuis JR, et al. 1996. Nuchal translucency cannot be used as a screening test for chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester of pregnancy in a routine ultrasound practice. Prenat Diagn 16: 797–805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee W, DeVore GR, Comstock CH, et al. 2003. Nasal bone evaluation in fetuses with Down syndrome during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 22: 55–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Malone FD, Berkowitz RL, Canick JA, et al. 2000. First trimester screening for aneuploidy: research or standard of care? Am J Obstet Gynecol 182: 490–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Minderer S, Gloning KP, Henrich W, et al. 2003. The nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21: sonographic versus pathomorphological findings. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22: 16–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, et al. 1992. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in the first trimester of pregnancy. Br Med J 304: 867–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicolaides KH, Snijders RJM, Cuckle HS, 1999. Correct estimation of parameters for ultrasound nuchal translucency screening. Prenat Diagn: 18: 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nyberg DA, Souter VL, 2001. Sonographic markers of fetal trisomies: second trimester. J Ultrasound Med 20: 655–674.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Orlandi F, Bilardo CM, Campogrande M, et al. 2003. Measurement of nasal bone length at 11–14 weeks of pregnancy and its potential role in Down syndrome risk assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Jul 22: 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pajkrt E, van Lith JMM, Mol BWJ, et al. 1998. Screening for Down’s syndrome by fetal nuchal translucency measurement in a general obstetric population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 12: 163–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Petrou S, Henderson J, Roberts T, et al. 2000. Recent economic evaluations of antenatal screening: a systematic review and critique. J Med Screen 7: 59–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandikcioglu M, Molsted K, Kjaer I, 1994. The prenatal development of the human nasal and volemar bones. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 14: 124–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Snijders RJM, Noble P, Sebire N, et al. 1998. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Lancet 351: 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stempfle N, Huten Y, Fredouille C, et al. 1999. Skeletal abnormalities in foetuses with Down’s syndrome: a radiographic post-mortem study. Pediatr Radiol 29: 682–688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Szabo J, Gellen J, 1990. Nuchal fluid accumulation in trisomy 21 detected by vaginal sonography in first trimester. Lancet 336: 1133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Vergani P, Locatelli A, Piccoli MG, et al. 1999. Best second trimester sonographic markers for the detection of trisomy 21. J Ultrasound Med 18: 469–473.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Guzman ER, et al. 1997. Second-trimester ultrasound markers for detection of trisomy 21: which markers are the best? Obstet Gynecol 89: 941–944.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vintzileos A, Walters C, Yeo L, 2003. Absent nasal bone in the prenatal detection of fetuses with trisomy 21 in a high-risk population. Obstet Gynecol May 101: 905–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wax JR, Guilbert J, Mather J, et al. 2000. Efficacy of community based second trimester genetic ultrasonography in detecting chromosomally abnormal fetus. J Ultrasound Med 19: 689–694.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piotr Sieroszewski
    • 1
  • Małgorzata Perenc
    • 1
  • Elżbieta Baś-Budecka
    • 1
  • Jacek Suzin
    • 1
  1. 1.1st Faculty of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Medical University of ŁódżMedical University of ŁódżŁódżPoland

Personalised recommendations