Atypicality index: avoiding false reassurance in prenatal screening. (11th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kristensen, S. E.; Gadsbøll, K.; Nicolaides, K. H.; Vogel, I.; Pedersen, L. H.; Wright, A.; Petersen, O. B.; Wright, D.
• Is Part Of: Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. Volume 61:Number 3(2023)
• Page Start: 333
• Page End: 338
• Publication Date: 2023-02-11
• Subjects: adverse outcome -- atypicality -- combined first‐trimester screening -- incidental findings -- prenatal screening -- risk assessment; Ultrasonics in obstetrics -- Periodicals; Generative organs, Female -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Diagnosis, Ultrasonic -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Female -- ultrasonography -- Periodicals; Ultrasonography, Prenatal -- Periodicals; 618.047543
• DOI: 10.1002/uog.26135
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-7692

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective: To demonstrate the application of the atypicality index as an adjunct to first‐trimester risk assessment for major trisomies by the combined test. Methods: This was a study of 123 998 Danish women with a singleton pregnancy who underwent routine first‐trimester screening, including risk assessment for major trisomies. An atypicality index, which is a measure of the degree to which a profile is atypical, was produced for measurements of fetal nuchal translucency thickness and maternal serum free β‐human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, intrauterine death and termination of pregnancy, was tabulated according to the screening result and atypicality index. Results: In pregnancies with low risk and those with high risk for major trisomies according to the combined screening test, the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcome increased with increasing atypicality index. In pregnancies with a low risk for trisomies and atypicality index of ≥ 99%, the incidence of adverse outcome was 5.1 (95% CI, 3.4–7.6) times higher compared with that in low‐risk pregnancies with a typical measurement profile, reflected by an atypicality index of < 80%. Similarly, in high‐risk pregnancies, the incidence of adverse outcome was 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4–14.5) times higher in those with an atypicality index of ≥ 99% compared to those with an atypicality index of < 80%. Using individual profile plots, we were able to demonstrate a transparent and intuitive method for visualization of multiple variables, which can help interpret the individual combination of measurements and level of atypicality. Conclusions: In pregnancies undergoing first‐trimester combined screening and classified as being at low risk for major trisomies, profiles that are typical of pregnancies with normal outcome provide additional reassurance, whereas those with an atypical profile may warrant further investigation. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.