PAPP-A Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Article

    First-trimester Combined Screening Test for Aneuploidies in Brazilian Unselected Pregnancies: Diagnostic Performance of Fetal Medicine Foundation Algorithm

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2018;40(7):384-389

    Summary

    Original Article

    First-trimester Combined Screening Test for Aneuploidies in Brazilian Unselected Pregnancies: Diagnostic Performance of Fetal Medicine Foundation Algorithm

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2018;40(7):384-389

    DOI 10.1055/s-0038-1666996

    Views5

    Abstract

    Objective

    The main objective of this study was to examine the diagnostic performance of the first-trimester combined test for aneuploidies in unselected pregnancies from Rio de Janeiro and compare it with the examples available in the literature.

    Methods

    We investigated 3,639 patients submitted to aneuploidy screening from February 2009 to September 2015. The examination is composed of the Fetal Medicine Foundation risk evaluation based on nuchal translucency evaluation, mother’s age, presence of risk factors, presence of the nasal bone and Doppler of the ductus venous in addition to biochemical analysis of pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) and beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) markers. The cut-off point for high risk for aneuploidies was defined as greater than 1:100, with intermediate risk defined between 1:100 and 1:1,000, and low risk defined as less than 1:1,000. The variable aneuploidy was considered as a result not only of trisomy of chromosome 21 but also trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 18.

    Results

    Excluding the losses, the results of 2,748 patients were analyzed. The firsttrimester combined test achieved 71.4% sensitivity with a 7.4% false-positive (FP) rate, specificity of 92.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 6.91% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.76%, when the cut-off point considered was greater than 1:1,000. Through a receiving operating characteristics (ROC) curve, the cut-off point that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of aneuploidies was defined as 1:1,860. When we adjusted the false-positive (FP) rate to 5%, the detection rate for this analysis is 72.7%, with a cut-off point of 1:610.

    Conclusion

    The combined test of aneuploidy screening showed a detection rate inferior to those described in the literature for a higher FP rate.

    See more

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE