This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bromley, B. Articles by Benacerraf, B. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bromley, B. Articles by Benacerraf, B. R.

The Genetic Sonogram

A Method of Risk Assessment for Down Syndrome in the Second Trimester

Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston Massachusetts.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Bryann Bromley, MD, Diagnostic Ultrasound Associates, 333 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115.

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.

Key Words: aneuploidy risk assessment • fetal Down syndrome markers • genetic sonogram • prenatal sonography • trisomy 21

Abbreviations: BPD, biparietal diameter • DS, Down syndrome • EIF, echogenic intracardiac focus • LR, likelihood ratio

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. L. Gray, J. M. Dicke, R. Dickerson, C. McCourt, and A. O. Odibo Reevaluating Humeral Length for the Detection of Fetal Trisomy 21 J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2009; 28(10): 1325 - 1330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. M. V. Fang, P. Benn, and J. F. X. Egan Use of the Genetic Sonogram in the United States in 2001 and 2007 J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2008; 27(11): 1543 - 1548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Fischer and G. L. Sveinbjornsson Influence of Fetal Heart Orientation on the Sonographic Identification of an Echogenic Intracardiac Focus in the Left Ventricle Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, January 1, 2006; 22(1): 48 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. M. Taslimi, R. Acosta, J. Chueh, L. Hudgins, K. Hunter, M. L. Druzin, and U. Chitkara Detection of Sonographic Markers of Fetal Aneuploidy Depends on Maternal and Fetal Characteristics J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2005; 24(6): 811 - 815. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Coco, P. Jeanty, and C. Jeanty An Isolated Echogenic Heart Focus Is Not an Indication for Amniocentesis in 12,672 Unselected Patients J. Ultrasound Med., April 1, 2004; 23(4): 489 - 496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. D. Winn, J. Sonson, and R. A. Filly Echogenic Intracardiac Focus: Potential for Misdiagnosis J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2003; 22(11): 1207 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]