Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-xdhtr Total loading time: 0.233 Render date: 2021-06-23T12:47:46.785Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

GENETIC SONOGRAM: COMPONENTS AND ROLE IN THE ERA OF PRENATAL SCREENING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2015

KIESHA N. BENN
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT.
PETER BENN
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT.
WINSTON A. CAMPBELL
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT.
AMIRHOSSEIN MOADDAB
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Fetal Center, Houston, TX.
ALIREZA A. SHAMSHIRSAZ
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Fetal Center, Houston, TX.
Corresponding

Abstract

Image of the first page of this article. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Callen, PW. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.Google Scholar
2. Vintzileos, AM. Introduction. Genet Sonogram 2003; 27: 121–3.Google Scholar
3. Bromley, B, Benacerraf, BR. The genetic sonogram scoring index. Semin Perinatol 2003; 27: 124–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Rodis, JF, Guzman, ER, Smulian, JC, Knuppel, RA. The use of second-trimester genetic sonogram in guiding clinical management of patients at increased risk for fetal trisomy 21. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 948–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Odibo, AO, Ghidini, A. Role of the second-trimester “genetic sonogram” for Down syndrome screen in the era of first-trimester screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34: 511–7.Google Scholar
6. Yeo, L, Vintzileos, AM. The use of genetic sonography to reduce the need for amniocentesis in women at high-risk for Down syndrome. Genet Sonogram 2003; 27: 152–9.Google Scholar
7. Aagaard-Tillery, KM, Malone, FD, Nyberg, DA, Porter, TF, Cuckle, HS, Fuchs, K et al. Role of second-trimester genetic sonography after down syndrome screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 1189–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Bromley, B, Lieberman, E, Shipp, TD, Benacerraf, BR. The genetic sonogram: a method of risk assessment for down syndrome in the second trimester. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21: 1087–96; quiz 97–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Smith-Bindman, R, Hosmer, W, Feldstein, VA, Deeks, JJ, Goldberg, JD. Second-trimester ultrasound to detect fetuses with down syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001; 285: 1044–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Nyberg, DA, Souter, VL, El-Bastawissi, A, Young, S, Luthhardt, F, Luthy, DA. Isolated sonographic markers for detection of fetal down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1053–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Nyberg, DA, Luthy, DA, Resta, RG, Nyberg, BC, Williams, MA. Age-adjusted ultrasound risk assessment for fetal down's syndrome during the second trimester: description of the method and analysis of 142 cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Wax, J, Minkoff, H, Johnson, A, Coleman, B, Levine, D, Helfgott, A et al. Consensus report on the detailed fetal anatomic ultrasound examination: indications, components, and qualifications. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33: 189–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Snijders, RJM, Sundberg, K, Holzgreve, W, Henry, G, Nicolaides, KH. Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 167–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. American College of O, Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 1459–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Benacerraf, BR. The role of the second trimester genetic sonogram in screening for fetal down syndrome. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29: 386–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Filly, RA. Obstetrical sonography: the best way to terrify a pregnant woman. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19: 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Wald, NJ, Kennard, A, Hackshaw, A, McGuire, A. Antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. J Med Screening 1997; 4: 181246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Bulletins, ACoP. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 217–27.Google Scholar
19. DeVore, GR. The role of fetal echocardiography in genetic sonography. Genetic Sonogram 2003; 27: 160–72.Google ScholarPubMed
20. Papp, C, Szigeti, Z, Toth-Pal, E, Hajdu, J, Joo, JG, Papp, Z. Ultrasonographic findings of fetal aneuploidies in the second trimester–our experiences. Fetal Diagn Ther 2008; 23: 105–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Nyberg, DA, Resta, RG, Luthy, DA, Hickok, DE, Mahony, BS, Hirsch, JH. Prenatal sonographic findings of down syndrome: review of 94 cases. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 370–7.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Cicero, S, Sacchini, C, Rembouskos, G, Nicolaides, KH. Sonographic markers of fetal aneuploidy—a review. From Genetics to Implantation and Early Fetal Development in Infertile Couples. 2003; vol. 24 (Suppl. 2): S88–S98.Google Scholar
23. Torfs, CP, Christianson, RE. Anomalies in Down syndrome individuals in a large population-based registry. Am J Med Genet 1998; 77: 431–8.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Haeusler, MCH, Berghold, A, Stoll, C, Barisic, I, Clementi, M. Prenatal ultrasonographic detection of gastrointestinal obstruction: results from 18 European congenital anomaly registries. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 616–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Freeman, SB, Torfs, CP, Romitti, PA, Royle, MH, Druschel, C, Hobbs, CA et al. Congenital gastrointestinal defects in Down syndrome: a report from the Atlanta and National Down Syndrome Projects. Clin Genet 2009; 75: 180–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Beke, A, Joo, JG, Csaba, A, Lázár, L, Bán, Z, Papp, C et al. Incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in the presence of fetal subcutaneous oedema, such as nuchal oedema, cystic hygroma and non-immune hydrops. Fetal Diagn Ther 2009; 25: 8392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Rotmensch, S, Liberati, M, Bronshtein, M, Schoenfeld-Dimaio, M, Shalev, J, Ben-Rafael, Z et al. Prenatal sonographic findings in 187 fetuses with Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 1997; 17: 1001–9.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Santolaya, J, Alley, D, Jaffe, R, Warsof, SL. Antenatal classification of hydrops fetalis. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 256–9.Google Scholar
29. Bethune, M. Literature review and suggested protocol for managing ultrasound soft markers for Down syndrome: thickened nuchal fold, echogenic bowel, shortened femur, shortened humerus, pyelectasis and absent or hypoplastic nasal bone. Australas Radiol 2007; 51: 218–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Benacerraf, BR, Barss, VA, Laboda, LA. A sonographic sign for the detection in the second trimester of the fetus with Down's syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 1078–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. 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: 644–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Rumi Kataguiri, M, Araujo Junior, E. Influence of second-trimester ultrasound markers for Down syndrome in pregnant women of advanced maternal age. 2014; 2014: 785730.Google Scholar
33. Benn, PA, Kaminsky, LM, Ying, J, Borgida, AF, Egan, JFX. Combined second-trimester biochemical and ultrasound screening for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 1168–76.Google Scholar
34. Reddy, UM, Abuhamad, AZ, Levine, D, Saade, GR. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, society for maternal-fetal medicine, American Institute of ultrasound in medicine, American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists, American College of radiology, society for pediatric radiology, and society of radiologists in ultrasound fetal imaging workshop. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33: 745–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Norton, ME. Follow-up of sonographically detected soft markers for fetal aneuploidy. Semin Perinat 2013; 37: 365–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Coco, C, Jeanty, P. Isolated fetal pyelectasis and chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 732–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Wax, JR, Donnelly, J, Carpenter, M, Chard, R, Pinette, MG, Blackstone, J et al. Childhood cardiac function after prenatal diagnosis of intracardiac echogenic foci. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22: 783–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Cicero, S, Sonek, JD, McKenna, DS, Croom, CS, Johnson, L, Nicolaides, KH. Nasal bone hypoplasia in trisomy 21 at 15?22 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 15–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Moreno-Cid, M, Rubio-Lorente, A, Rodriguez, MJ, Bueno-Pacheco, G, Tenías, JM, Román-Ortiz, C et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of performance of second-trimester nasal bone assessment in detection of fetuses with Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 247–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Agathokleous, M, Chaveeva, P, Poon, LC, Kosinski, P, Nicolaides, KH. Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 247–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Shamshirsaz, AA, Ravangard, SF, Turner, G, Borgida, A, Janicki, MB, Campbell, WA et al. Efficacy of the genetic sonogram in a stepwise sequential protocol for down syndrome screening. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32: 1607–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Lo, YM, Corbetta, N, Chamberlain, PF, Rai, V, Sargent, IL, Redman, CW et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 1997; 350: 485–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Benn, P. Non-invasive prenatal testing using cell free DNA in maternal plasma: recent developments and future prospects. J Clin Med 2014; 3: 537–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Committee Opinion. Cell-free DNA Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2015. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001007.Google ScholarPubMed
45. Dar, P, Curnow, KJ, Gross, SJ, Hall, MP, Stosic, M, Demko, Z et al. Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 527.e1–e17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Salomon, LJ, Alfirevic, Z, Audibert, F, Kagan, KO, Paladini, D, Yeo, G et al. ISUOG consensus statement on the impact of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44: 122–3.Google Scholar
47. Wapner, RJ, Martin, CL, Levy, B, Ballif, BC, Eng, CM, Zachary, JM et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Grandjean, H, Larroque, D, Levi, S. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 446–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

GENETIC SONOGRAM: COMPONENTS AND ROLE IN THE ERA OF PRENATAL SCREENING
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

GENETIC SONOGRAM: COMPONENTS AND ROLE IN THE ERA OF PRENATAL SCREENING
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

GENETIC SONOGRAM: COMPONENTS AND ROLE IN THE ERA OF PRENATAL SCREENING
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *