Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
Cephalic Index Is Not a Useful Sonographic Marker for Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18Lim K.I. · Delisle M.-F. · Austin S.J. · Wilson R.D.Centre for Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment, British Columbia Women’s Hospital, and The Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: February 03, 2003
Accepted: October 13, 2003
Published online: November 04, 2004
Issue release date: November – December
Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 1
ISSN: 1015-3837 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9964 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/FDT
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate whether the cephalic index (CI) in trisomy 21 (T21) and trisomy 18 (T18) fetuses is different from that in euploid fetuses, and if so, is this difference of clinical utility. Methods: Retrospective. Over an 18-month period, patients attending a single centre for routine advanced maternal age amniocentesis were recruited for a prospective study of ultrasound soft markers of aneuploidy. This prospective database was searched for cases with the following criteria: (1) occipitofrontal diameters (OFD) measured at least twice; (2) gestational age between 98 and 126 days either by ultrasound-confirmed menstrual dates or early second- trimester biometry; (3) no major central nervous system abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound, and (4) normal fetal karyotype. This constituted the control group. The study group consisted of all cases of prenatally diagnosed T18 and T21 identified in the same time period with criterion 2 as above. The fetuses in the study group had the OFD measured in a blinded fashion from the biparietal diameter images. CI (= mean biparietal diameter/mean OFD) was calculated for all fetuses. Pearson coefficient and regression analysis were used to determine independence of CI to gestational age in the control group. Standard descriptive statistics were used to describe interval data and two-tailed t test was used to compare means between the study and control groups. ROC curves were constructed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of CI for T18 and T21. Results: Five hundred and ninety-seven fetuses were available for analysis. There were 551 fetuses in the control group and 46 in the study group. Within the study group, there were 30 T21 and 16 T18 fetuses. Within the control group, CI was independent of gestational age (R = 0.026, p = 0.922). Mean CI for the control group was 0.802 (SD 0.040) and this was not statistical different from either the T21 group (mean 0.816, SD 0.042, p = 0.067) or the T18 group (mean 0.792, SD 0.057, p = 0.491). Area under the ROC curves was determined for both T18 and T21 and both had poor results (0.545 and 0.598, respectively). When CI was evaluated in the control group according to the two main ethnic groups in the study, there was a trend towards a statistical difference (p = 0.046) between the fetuses of Oriental and Caucasian mothers. Conclusions:In this retrospective study, CI was not found to be statistically different between the study and control groups. Although a trend towards significance was seen with T21, this difference is not clinically useful. There may be interethnic differences in the CI between fetuses. CI is not useful for aneuploidy screening by ultrasound.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
-
Snidjers RM, Nicolaides KH: Fetal abnormalities: Ultrasound markers of aneuploidy; in Nicolaides KH (ed): Frontiers in Fetal Medicine. London, Parthenon Publishing, 1996, pp 1–7.
- Perry TB, Benzie RJ, Cassar N, Hamilton EF, Stocker J, Toftager-Larsen K, Lippman A: Fetal cephalometry by ultrasound as a screening procedure for the prenatal detection of Down’s syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984;91:138–143.
- Lockwood C, Benacerraf B, Krinsky A, Blakemore K, Belanger K, Mahoney M, Hobbins J: A sonographic screening method for Down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:803–808.
- Shah YG, Eckl CJ, Stinson SK, Woods JR: Biparietal diameter/femur length ratio, cephalic index, and femur length measurements: Not reliable screening techniques for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:186–188.
- Borrell A, Costa D, Martinez JM, Puerto B, Carrio A, Ojuel J, Fortuny A: Brachycephaly is ineffective for detection of Down syndrome in early mid-trimester fetuses. Early Hum Dev 1997;47:57–61.
- Gray DL, Songster GS, Parvin CA, Crane JP: Cephalic index: A gestational age-dependent biometric parameter. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:600–603.
- Nicolaides KH, Snijders RJ, Gosden CM, Campbell S: Ultrasonographically detectable markers of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Lancet 1992;340:704–707.
- Shipp TD, Bromley B, Lieberman E, Benacerraf BR: The frequency of the detection of fetal echogenic intracardiac foci with respect to maternal race. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:460–462.
- Yeo GS, Chan WB, Lun KC, Lai FM: Racial differences fetal morphology in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994;23:371–376.
- Lessoway VA, Schulzer M, Wittmann BK, et al: Ultrasound fetal biometry charts for a North American Caucasian population. J Clin Ultrasound 1998;26:433–453.
-
Uitenbroek DG: Binomial. SISA. 1997.http://home.clara.net/sisa/binomial.htm.(1 Jan 2002).
- Zweig MH, Campbell G: Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39:561–577.
-
Schecter MT, Sheps SB: Diagnostic testing revisited: Pathways through uncertainty. Can Med Assoc J 1995;172:1229–1235.
Article / Publication Details
Received: February 03, 2003
Accepted: October 13, 2003
Published online: November 04, 2004
Issue release date: November – December
Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 1
ISSN: 1015-3837 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9964 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/FDT
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
