Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Fetal Medicine 2024; 11(02): 094-099
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787804
Original Article

Role of Fetal Second Trimester 2D Ultrasound Facial Parameters in Down Syndrome Detection

Swathi Mylavarapu
1   Department of Fetal Medicine, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Arati Singh
1   Department of Fetal Medicine, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Geeta Kolar 
1   Department of Fetal Medicine, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Down syndrome (DS) is the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability in humans. Various screening techniques are available, including the detection of facial characteristics of DS fetuses by prenatal ultrasonographic markers. Very few studies have tested the predictive validity of the markers in the Indian population.

Objective This article determines the role of second trimester ultrasound in predicting DS using facial markers, namely, nasal bone length (NBL), prenasal thickness (PNT), NBL/PNT ratio, and PNT/NBL ratio in the Indian population

Materials and Methods This prospective observational study recruited singleton pregnant women at 14 to 28 weeks of gestation with no comorbidities. Women with maternal disorders, abnormal amniotic fluid, and fetal structural anomalies were excluded. Three images of the midsagittal plane were obtained during a routine anomaly or well-being scan. The single “best” image was used for analysis. Scatter plots with regression lines and percentile curves for each gestation were created. Developed nomograms and scattered plots were validated by recruiting DS fetuses (diagnosed by amniocentesis and fetal karyotype).

Results This study included 450 normal fetuses for developing nomograms, which were verified by matching 45 DS fetuses. The diagnostic accuracy of NBL, PNT, NBL/PNT ratios and PNT/NBL ratios was found to be 94, 99, 95, and 94.8, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were found to be 51.11, 42.42, 48.89, 65.4 and 99, 96, 99.56, and 96.7 for NBL, PNT, NBL/PNT ratio, and PNT/NBL ratio, respectively. False negative rate and false positive rate were 38.89, 57.58, 51.11, 34.6 and 1, 4, 0.44, 3.3 for NBL, PNT, NBL/PNT ratio, PNT/NBL ratio, respectively.

Conclusion High diagnostic accuracy was found for PNT, followed by NBL/PNT ratio, PNT/NBL ratio, and NBL. However, considering sensitivity and specificity markers together, we found the NBL/PNT ratio as a good diagnostic marker in predicting DS. Furthermore, the NBL/PNT ratio performs slightly better than its inverse counterpart (PNT/NBL ratio) for detecting DS fetuses, primarily because it produced less false positive cases.

Keywords

Down syndrome - ultrasound facial markers - nasal bone length - prenatal thickness - NBL to PNT ratio - PNT to NBL ratio

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Dr. Arati Singh, upon reasonable request.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
27 June 2024

© 2024. Society of Fetal Medicine. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Fidler DJ. Down syndrome. In: Haith MM, Benson JB. eds. Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development. San Diego: Academic Press; 2008: 422-429
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Kelminson KL, Elias ER, Goldson E. Down syndrome. In: Bajaj L, Hambidge SJ, Kerby G, Nyquist A-C. eds. Berman's Pediatric Decision Making. 5th ed.. Saint Louis: Mosby; 2011: 680-683
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Alldred SK, Takwoingi Y, Guo B. et al. First and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 3 (03) CD012599
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nations U. World Down Syndrome Day. U N n.d. Accessed May 5, 2023 at: https://www.un.org/en/observances/down-syndrome-day
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Traisrisilp K, Sirichotiyakul S, Tongprasert F. et al. First trimester genetic sonogram for screening fetal Down syndrome: a population-based study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 60 (04) 706-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Understanding a Diagnosis of Down Syndrome | National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS) n.d. Accessed May 5, 2023 at: https://ndss.org/lifespan/understanding-a-diagnosis-of-down-syndrome
    Google Scholar
  • 7 How do health care providers diagnose Down syndrome?. Https://www.NichdNihGov/ 2017 . Accessed May 5, 2023 at: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/down/conditioninfo/diagnosis
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ashoor Al Mahri G, Nicolaides K. Evolution in screening for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 21: 51-57
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Simionescu AA, Stanescu AMA. Missed Down syndrome cases after first trimester false-negative screening-lessons to be learned. Medicina (Kaunas) 2020; 56 (04) 199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Agathokleous M, Chaveeva P, Poon LCY, Kosinski P, Nicolaides KH. Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (03) 247-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bromley B, Lieberman E, Shipp TD, Benacerraf BR. Fetal nose bone length: a marker for Down syndrome in the second trimester. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21 (12) 1387-1394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Maymon R, Levinsohn-Tavor O, Cuckle H. et al. Second trimester ultrasound prenasal thickness combined with nasal bone length: a new method of Down syndrome screening. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25 (10) 906-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Szabó A, Szili K, Szabó JT. et al. Nasal bone length: prenasal thickness ratio: a strong 2D ultrasound marker for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34 (12) 1139-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sun Y, Zhang L, Dong D. et al. Application of an individualized nomogram in first-trimester screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 58 (01) 56-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Guis F, Ville Y, Vincent Y, Doumerc S, Pons JC, Frydman R. Ultrasound evaluation of the length of the fetal nasal bones throughout gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5 (05) 304-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Persico N, Borenstein M, Molina F, Azumendi G, Nicolaides KH. Prenasal thickness in trisomy-21 fetuses at 16-24 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32 (06) 751-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Maymon R, Moskovitch M, Levinsohn-Tavor O, Weinraub Z, Herman A, Cuckle H. Bedside estimation of Down syndrome risk from second-trimester ultrasound prenasal thickness. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34 (06) 629-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Miguelez J, Moskovitch M, Cuckle H, Zugaib M, Bunduki V, Maymon R. Model-predicted performance of second-trimester Down syndrome screening with sonographic prenasal thickness. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29 (12) 1741-1747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vos FI, De Jong-Pleij EA, Ribbert LS, Tromp E, Bilardo CM. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging and measurement of nasal bone length, prenasal thickness, and frontomaxillary facial angle in normal second-and third-trimester fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39 (06) 636-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Benacerraf BR. The history of the second-trimester sonographic markers for detecting fetal Down syndrome, and their current role in obstetric practice. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30 (07) 644-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bernardeco J, Cruz J, Rijo C, Cohen Á. Nasal bone in fetal aneuploidy risk assessment: are they independent markers in the first and second trimesters?. J Perinat Med 2022; 50 (04) 462-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pranpanus S, Keatkongkaew K, Suksai M. Utility of fetal facial markers on a second trimester genetic sonogram in screening for Down syndrome in a high-risk Thai population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022; 22 (01) 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vos FI, De Jong-Pleij EA, Bakker M. et al. Nasal bone length, prenasal thickness, prenasal thickness-to-nasal bone length ratio and prefrontal space ratio in second- and third-trimester fetuses with Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45 (02) 211-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gautier M, Gueneret M, Plavonil C, Jolivet E, Schaub B. Normal range of fetal nasal bone length during the second trimester in an Afro-Caribbean population and likelihood ratio for trisomy 21 of absent or hypoplastic nasal bone. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017; 42 (02) 130-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Singh C, Thakur S, Arora N, Khurana D. Revisiting absent nasal bone in the second trimester. J Clin Ultrasound 2021; 49 (01) 3-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rumi Kataguiri M, Araujo Júnior E, Silva Bussamra LC, Nardozza LM, Fernandes Moron A. Influence of second-trimester ultrasound markers for Down syndrome in pregnant women of advanced maternal age. J Pregnancy 2014; 2014: 785730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Arjunan SP, Thomas MC. A review of ultrasound imaging techniques for the detection of Down syndrome. IRBM 2020; 41: 115-123
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar