CRITERIA FOR FETAL NUCHAL THICKNESS CUT‐OFF: A RE‐EVALUATION

An attempt has been made to establish a more effective cut‐off criterion for nuchal thickness (NT) and to assess the optimal gestational period for the prediction of trisomies 21 and 18. Reference intervals were established for NT from the tenth to the 18th week, using either gestation‐specific centiles or the parametric method. The measurements in 47 consecutive trisomy 21 and 18 trisomy 18 cases were plotted against these intervals. Assaying different cut‐off criteria for both the centile and the parametric methods, sensitivities and false‐positive rates for each gestational week were calculated and then compared with the commonly applied ‘two‐stepped’ cut‐off method (3 mm early, 6 mm later). The parametric method, based on a progressive rise, with +2·5 SD for the corresponding gestational week as a cut‐off value, showed the best performance (likelihood ratio 38) in the prediction for trisomy 21. The optimal gestational age was the 12–18 week period, with an overall sensitivity of 62 per cent (23/37) for an average false‐positive rate of 0·7 per cent. For trisomy 18, the most effective cut‐off was also +2·5 SD, and 10–13 gestational weeks as the optimal period, achieving 86 per cent (6/7) sensitivity for a 1·9 per cent false‐positive rate. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  William J. Watson,et al.  Ultrasonographic measurement of fetal nuchal skin to screen for chromosomal abnormalities , 1994, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Fetal nuchal oedema: associated malformations and chromosomal defects. , 1992, Fetal diagnosis and therapy.

[3]  B. Uerpairojkit,et al.  Normal nuchal thickness in the midtrimester indicates reduced risk of Down syndrome in pregnancies with abnormal triple-screen results. , 1995, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  J. Egan,et al.  Adjusting the risk for trisomy 21 on the basis of second-trimester ultrasonography. , 1995, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  B. Benacerraf,et al.  Sonographic identification of second-trimester fetuses with Down's syndrome. , 1987 .

[6]  D. Gray,et al.  Optimal nuchal skin-fold thresholds based on gestational age for prenatal detection of Down syndrome. , 1994, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  D. Nyberg,et al.  Role of prenatal ultrasonography in women with positive screen for Down syndrome on the basis of maternal serum markers. , 1995, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  D. Gray,et al.  Sonographically Measured Nuchal Skinfold Thickness As a Screening Tool for Down Syndrome: Results of a Prospective Clinical Trial , 1991, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for fetal trisomy in the first trimester of pregnancy , 1994, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[10]  J. Martínez,et al.  Early midtrimester fetal nuchal thickness: effectiveness as a marker of Down syndrome. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[12]  B R Benacerraf,et al.  A sonographic sign for the detection in the second trimester of the fetus with Down's syndrome. , 1985, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  G. Palomaki,et al.  Prospective Multicenter Study of Second-Trimester Nuchal Skinfold Thickness in Unaffected and Down Syndrome Pregnancies , 1994, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  H Grandjean,et al.  Sonographic Measurement of Nuchal Skinfold Thickness for Detection of Down Syndrome in the Second‐Trimester Fetus: A Multicenter Prospective Study , 1995, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  B. Benacerraf,et al.  Soft tissue nuchal fold in the second-trimester fetus: standards for normal measurements compared with those in Down syndrome. , 1987, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.