Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2018
Screening for Common Fetal Trisomies in Twin Pregnancies: First-Trimester Combined, Cell-Free DNA, or Both?
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pasquini Lucia, Ponziani Ilaria, Periti Enrico, Marchi Laura, Luchi Carlo, Accurti Veronica, D'Ambrosi Francesco, Persico Nicola
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution of risks for fetal trisomies after first-trimester combined screening in twins and to investigate different strategies for clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all twin pregnancies undergoing first-trimester combined screening over a 10 years' period. The population was stratified according to various risk cut-offs, and we examined different screening strategies for implementation of cfDNA testing in terms of impact on invasive testing rate, cfDNA test failure rate, and economic costs.
RESULTS: We included 572 twin pregnancies: 480 (83.92%) dichorionic and 92 (16.08%) monochorionic. Performing a first-line combined screening and offering cfDNA testing to the group with a risk between 1 in 10 and 1 in 1,000, would lead to an invasive testing rate of 2.45%, and cfDNA testing would be performed in 22.20% of the population. This strategy would be cost-neutral compared to universal combined screening alone.
CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening results can be used to stratify twin pregnancies into different risk categories and select those that could be offered cfDNA testing. A contingent screening strategy would substantially decrease the need for invasive testing in twins and it would be cost-neutral compared to combined testing alone.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all twin pregnancies undergoing first-trimester combined screening over a 10 years' period. The population was stratified according to various risk cut-offs, and we examined different screening strategies for implementation of cfDNA testing in terms of impact on invasive testing rate, cfDNA test failure rate, and economic costs.
RESULTS: We included 572 twin pregnancies: 480 (83.92%) dichorionic and 92 (16.08%) monochorionic. Performing a first-line combined screening and offering cfDNA testing to the group with a risk between 1 in 10 and 1 in 1,000, would lead to an invasive testing rate of 2.45%, and cfDNA testing would be performed in 22.20% of the population. This strategy would be cost-neutral compared to universal combined screening alone.
CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening results can be used to stratify twin pregnancies into different risk categories and select those that could be offered cfDNA testing. A contingent screening strategy would substantially decrease the need for invasive testing in twins and it would be cost-neutral compared to combined testing alone.