Book contents
- High-Risk Pregnancy: Management Options
- High-Risk Pregnancy: Management Options
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Section 1 Prepregnancy Problems
- Section 2 Early Prenatal Problems
- Chapter 5 Bleeding and Pain in Early Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2019)
- Chapter 6 Recurrent Miscarriage (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
- Chapter 7 Screening for Fetal Abnormality in the First and Second Trimesters (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
- Chapter 8 Invasive Procedures for Prenatal Diagnosis (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
- Section 3 Late Prenatal – Fetal Problems
- Section 4 Problems Associated with Infection
- Chapter 24 Hepatitis Virus Infections in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 23rd July 2019)
- Chapter 25 Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 23rd July 2019)
- Chapter 26 Rubella, Measles, Mumps, Varicella, and Parvovirus in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 11th November 2020)
- Chapter 27 Cytomegalovirus, Herpes Simplex Virus, Adenovirus, Coxsackievirus, and Human Papillomavirus in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 11th November 2020)
- Chapter 28 Parasitic Infections in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 15th June 2018)
- Chapter 29 Other Infectious Conditions in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 11th November 2020)
- Section 5 Late Pregnancy – Maternal Problems
- Section 6 Late Prenatal – Obstetric Problems
- Section 7 Postnatal Problems
- Section 8 Normal Values
- Index
- References
Chapter 7 - Screening for Fetal Abnormality in the First and Second Trimesters (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
from Section 2 - Early Prenatal Problems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2017
Book contents
- High-Risk Pregnancy: Management Options
- High-Risk Pregnancy: Management Options
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Section 1 Prepregnancy Problems
- Section 2 Early Prenatal Problems
- Chapter 5 Bleeding and Pain in Early Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2019)
- Chapter 6 Recurrent Miscarriage (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
- Chapter 7 Screening for Fetal Abnormality in the First and Second Trimesters (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
- Chapter 8 Invasive Procedures for Prenatal Diagnosis (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)
- Section 3 Late Prenatal – Fetal Problems
- Section 4 Problems Associated with Infection
- Chapter 24 Hepatitis Virus Infections in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 23rd July 2019)
- Chapter 25 Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 23rd July 2019)
- Chapter 26 Rubella, Measles, Mumps, Varicella, and Parvovirus in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 11th November 2020)
- Chapter 27 Cytomegalovirus, Herpes Simplex Virus, Adenovirus, Coxsackievirus, and Human Papillomavirus in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 11th November 2020)
- Chapter 28 Parasitic Infections in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 15th June 2018)
- Chapter 29 Other Infectious Conditions in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 11th November 2020)
- Section 5 Late Pregnancy – Maternal Problems
- Section 6 Late Prenatal – Obstetric Problems
- Section 7 Postnatal Problems
- Section 8 Normal Values
- Index
- References
Summary
Congenital anomalies are found in 3–8% of all fetuses and newborns. They include embryological defects but also destructive sequences that usually start with a vascular, infectious, or chemical insult that later results in various defects in different parts of the body, though the brain and spinal cord are particularly sensitive. Prenatal fetal abnormality screening programs developed to detect these anomalies normally comprise a combination of ultrasound examinations and biochemical investigations. Their use results in a suspected or actual diagnosis in 40–90% of screened women.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- High-Risk PregnancyManagement Options, pp. 148 - 188Publisher: Cambridge University PressFirst published in: 2017
References
Garne, E, Loane, M, Dolk, H, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of severe structural congenital malformations in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 6–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souka, AP, Snidjers, RJM, Novakov, A, Soares, W, Nicolaides, KH. Defects and syndromes in chromosomally normal fetuses with increased nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1988; 11: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonek, J. First trimester ultrasonography in screening and detection of fetal anomalies. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2007; 145C: 45–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, CR, Barnhart, KT. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: decision analysis comparing six strategies. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 464–70.Google Scholar
Seeber, BE, Barnhart, KT. Suspected ectopic pregnancy (review). Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 399–413. Erratum in Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 955.Google Scholar
Ahmed, AA, Tom, BD, Calabrese, P. Ectopic pregnancy diagnosis and the pseudo-sac. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1125–8.Google Scholar
Barnhart, K, Mennuti, MT, Benjamin, I, et al. Prompt diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in an emergency department setting. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 1010–15.Google Scholar
Barnhart, K, Esposito, M, Coutifaris, C. An update on the medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2000; 27: 653–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandya, PP, Snijders, RJ, Psara, N, Hilbert, L, Nicolaides, KH. The prevalence of nonviable pregnancy at 10–13 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 170–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, BA, Creinin, MD. Contemporary management of early pregnancy failure (review). Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 50: 67–88.Google Scholar
Sawyer, E, Jurkovic, D. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of abnormal early pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 50: 31–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, SR. Sonography in early pregnancy failure. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1994; 37: 681–92.Google Scholar
Levi, CS, Lyons, EA, Lindsay, DJ. Early diagnosis of nonviable pregnancy with endovaginal US. Radiology 1988; 167: 383–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hately, W, Case, J, Campbell, S. Establishing the death of an embryo by ultrasound: report of a public inquiry with recommendations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 353–7.Google Scholar
Pennell, RG, Needleman, L, Pajak, T, et al. Prospective comparison of vaginal and abdominal sonography in normal early pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10: 63–7.Google Scholar
Abaid, LN, As-Sanie, S, Wolfe, HM. Relationship between crown–rump length and early detection of cardiac activity. J Reprod Med 2007; 52: 375–8.Google Scholar
Acharya, G, Morgan, H. First-trimester, three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound volumetry in normal pregnancies and spontaneous miscarriages. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 575–9.Google Scholar
Choong, S, Rombauts, L, Ugoni, A, Meagher, S. Ultrasound prediction of risk of spontaneous miscarriage in live embryos from assisted conceptions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 571–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chittacharoen, A, Herabutya, Y. Slow fetal heart rate may predict pregnancy outcome in first-trimester threatened abortion. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 227–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchiers, EH, Dhont, M, De Sutter, PA, Beghin, CJ, Vandekerckhove, DA. Predictive value of early embryonic cardiac activity for pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 11–14.Google Scholar
Doubilet, PM, Benson, CB, Bourne, T, Blaivas, M; Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Multispecialty Panel on Early First Trimester Diagnosis of Miscarriage and Exclusion of a Viable Intrauterine Pregnancy. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1443–51.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Souter, V, Tul, N, Snijders, R, Nicolaides, KH. A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10–14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 231–7.Google Scholar
Campbell, S, Warsof, SL, Little, D, Cooper, DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 613–20.Google Scholar
Dietz, PM, England, LJ, Callaghan, WM, et al. A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21 (Suppl 2): 62–71.Google Scholar
Robinson, HP, Fleming, JE. A critical evaluation of sonar “crown–rump length” measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975; 82: 702–10.Google Scholar
Bottomley, C, Bourne, T. Dating and growth in the first trimester. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 23: 439–52.Google Scholar
Daya, S, Woods, S, Ward, S, Lappalainen, R, Caco, C. Early pregnancy assessment with transvaginal ultrasound scanning. CMAJ 1991; 144: 441–6.Google Scholar
Lasser, DM, Peisner, DB, Vollebergh, J, Timor-Tritsch, I. First-trimester fetal biometry using transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993; 3: 104–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wisser, J, Dirscheld, P. Estimation of gestational age by transvaginal sonographic measurement of greatest embryonic length in dated human embryos. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 457–62.Google Scholar
Hadlock, FP. Sonographic estimation of fetal age and weight. Radiol Clin North Am 1990; 28: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papageorghiou, AT, Kennedy, SH, Salomon, LJ, et al.; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st). International standards for early fetal size and pregnancy dating based on ultrasound measurement of crown–rump length in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44: 641–8.Google Scholar
Morin, I, Morin, L, Zhang, X, et al. Determinants and consequences of discrepancies in menstrual and ultrasonographic gestational age estimates. BJOG 2005; 112: 145–52.Google Scholar
Bottomley, C, Daemen, A, Mukri, F, et al. Functional linear discriminant analysis: a new longitudinal approach to the assessment of embryonic growth. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 278–83.Google Scholar
Bukowski, R, Smith, GC, Malone, FD, et al.; FASTER Research Consortium. Human sexual size dimorphism in early pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165: 1216–18.Google Scholar
Salomon, LJ, Bernard, JP, Nizard, J, Ville, Y. First-trimester screening for fetal triploidy at 11 to 14 weeks: a role for fetal biometry. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25: 479–83.Google Scholar
Bahado-Singh, RO, Lynch, L, Deren, O, et al. First-trimester growth restriction and fetal aneuploidy: the effect of type of aneuploidy and gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 976–80.Google Scholar
Goldstein, SR, Kerenyi, T, Scher, J, Papp, C. Correlation between karyotype and ultrasound findings in patients with failed early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 314–17.Google Scholar
Smith, GC, Smith, MF, McNay, MB, Fleming, JE. First-trimester growth and the risk of low birth weight. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1817–22.Google Scholar
Rossi, C, Prefumo, F. Accuracy of ultrasonography at 11–14 weeks of gestation for detection of fetal structural anomalies: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 1160–7.Google Scholar
Souka, AP, Pilalis, A, Kavalakis, Y, et al. Assessment of fetal anatomy at the 11–14-week ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 730–4.Google Scholar
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Fuchs, KM, Monteagudo, A, D’Alton, ME. Performing a fetal anatomy scan at the time of first-trimester screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 402–7.Google Scholar
Green, JJ, Hobbins, JC. Abdominal ultrasound examination of the first trimester fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 165–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazanakis, M, Whitlow, BJ, Economides, DL. The significance of choroids plexus cysts, “golf ball” sign and pyelectasis in the first trimester of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 17: S32.Google Scholar
Bromley, B, Lieberman, R, Benacerraf, BR. Choroid plexus cysts: not associated with Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 232–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaas, HG, Eik-Nes, SH. Sonoembryology and early prenatal diagnosis of neural anomalies. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 312–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaas, HG, Eik-Nes, SH, Berg, S, Torp, H. In-vivo three dimensional ultrasound reconstructions of embryos and early fetuses. Lancet 1998; 352: 1182–6.Google Scholar
Tache, V, Tarsa, M, Romine, L, Pretorius, DH. Three-dimensional obstetric ultrasound (review). Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2008; 29: 147–55.Google Scholar
Kim, MS, Jeanty, P, Turner, C, Benoit, B. Three-dimensional sonographic evaluation of embryonic brain development. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 119–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smrcek, JM, Berg, C, Geipel, A, et al. Early fetal echocardiography: heart biometry and visualization of cardiac structures between 10–15 weeks’ gestation. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25: 173–82.Google Scholar
Huggon, IC, Ghi, T, Cook, AC, et al. Fetal cardiac abnormalities identified prior to 14 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 22–9.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, JM, Armstrong, MA, Economides, DL. Assessment of fetal anomaly at 12 to 13 weeks of gestation by transabdominal and transvaginal sonography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 82–5.Google Scholar
Whitlow, BJ, Economides, DL. The optimal gestational age to examine fetal anatomy and measure nuchal translucency in the first trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 11: 258–61.Google Scholar
Lombardi, CM, Bellotti, M, Fesslova, V, Cappellini, A. Fetal echocardiography at the time of the nuchal translucency scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 249–57.Google Scholar
Pajkrt, E, Weisz, B, Firth, HV, Chitty, LS. Fetal cardiac anomalies and genetic syndromes. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 1104–15.Google Scholar
Allan, LD, Santos, R, Pexieder, T. Anatomical and echocardiographic correlates of normal cardiac morphology in the late first trimester fetus. Heart 1997; 77: 68–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, AC, Yates, RW, Anderson, RH. Normal and abnormal fetal cardiac anatomy. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 1032–48.Google Scholar
McAuliffe, FM, Hornberger, LK, Winsor, S, et al. Fetal cardiac defects and increased nuchal translucency thickness: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 19: 1486–90.Google Scholar
Makrydimas, G, Sotiriadis, A, Ioannidis, JP. Screening performance of first-trimester nuchal translucency for major cardiac defects: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 1330–5.Google Scholar
Makrydimas, G, Sotiriadis, A, Huggon, IC, et al. Nuchal translucency and fetal cardiac defects: a pooled analysis of major echocardiography centers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 89–95.Google Scholar
Blaas, HG, Eik-Nes, SH, Kiserud, T, Hellevik, LR. Early development of the abdominal wall, stomach and heart from 7 to 12 weeks of gestation: a longitudinal ultrasound study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 240–9.Google Scholar
Diamant, NE. Development of esophageal function. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985; 131: S29–S32.Google Scholar
Rosati, P, Guariglia, L. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of the fetal urinary tract in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 95–100.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Von Kaisenberg, C, Rubio, C, Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH. Fetal megacystis at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 387–90.Google Scholar
Zorzoli, A, Kusterman, E, Carvelli, E, et al. Measurements of fetal limb bones in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 29–33.Google Scholar
Efrat, Z, Perri, T, Ramati, E, Tugendreich, D, Meizner, I. Fetal gender assignment by first- trimester ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 619–21.Google Scholar
Mazza, V, Di Monte, I, Pati, M, et al. Sonographic biometrical range of external genitalia differentiation in the first trimester of pregnancy: analysis of 2593 cases. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 677–84.Google Scholar
Whitlow, BJ, Lazanakis, MS, Economides, DL. The sonographic identification of fetal gender from 11 to 14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 301–4.Google Scholar
Pedreira, DA. In search for the “third point.” Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 262–3.Google Scholar
Michailidis, GD, Papageorgiou, P, Morris, RW, Economides, DL. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound for fetal gender determination in the first trimester. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 448–51.Google Scholar
Snijders, RJ, Noble, P, Sebire, N, Souka, A, Nicolaides, KH. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Lancet 1998; 352: 343–6.Google Scholar
Pandya, PP, Snijders, RJ, Johnson, SP, De Lourdes, Brizot M, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for fetal trisomies by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102: 957–62.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, JM, Morris, RW, Economides, DL. Nuchal translucency measurements: frequency distribution and changes with gestation in a general population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 1201–4.Google Scholar
Pandya, PP, Altman, DG, Brizot, ML, Pettersen, H, Nicolaides, KH. Repeatability of measurement of fetal nuchal translucency thickness. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 334–7.Google Scholar
Pajkrt, E, Mol, BW, Boer, K, et al. Intra- and interoperator repeatability of the nuchal translucency measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 297–301.Google Scholar
Pandya, PP, Goldberg, H, Walton, B, et al. The implementation of first-trimester scanning at 10–13 weeks’ gestation and the measurement of fetal nuchal translucency thickness in two maternity units. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 20–5.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH. A unified approach to risk assessment for fetal aneuploidies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 48–54.Google Scholar
Szabo, J, Gellen, J, Sizemere, G. First-trimester ultrasound screening for fetal aneuploidies in women over 35 and under 35 years of age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 161–3.Google Scholar
Carmichael, JB, Liu, HP,Janik, D, et al. Expanded conventional first trimester screening. Prenat Diagn 2017; 37: 802–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taipale, P, Hiilesmaa, V, Salonen, R, Ylostalo, P. Increased nuchal translucency as a marker for fetal chromosomal defects. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1654–8.Google Scholar
Hafner, E, Schuchter, K, Liebhart, E, Philipp, K. Results of routine fetal nuchal translucency measurement at 10–13 weeks in 4,233 unselected pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 29–34.Google Scholar
Pajkrt, E, van Lith, JM, Mol, BW, Bleker, OP, Bilardo, CM. Screening for Down’s syndrome by fetal nuchal translucency measurement in a general obstetric population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 163–9.Google Scholar
Economides, DL, Whitlow, BJ, Kadir, R, Lazanakis, M, Verdin, SM. First trimester sonographic detection of chromosomal abnormalities in an unselected population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 58–62.Google Scholar
Schwärzler, P, Carvalho, JS, Senat, MV, et al. Screening for fetal aneuploidies and fetal cardiac abnormalities by nuchal translucency thickness measurement at 10–14 weeks of gestation as part of routine antenatal care in an unselected population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 1029–34.Google Scholar
Theodoropoulos, P, Lolis, D, Papageorgiou, C, et al. Evaluation of first-trimester screening by fetal nuchal translucency and maternal age. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 133–7.Google Scholar
Zoppi, MA, Ibba, RM, Floris, M, Monni, G. Fetal nuchal translucency screening in 12,495 pregnancies in Sardinia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 649–51.Google Scholar
Gasiorek-Wiens, A, Tercanli, S, Kozlowski, P, et al. Screening for trisomy 21 by fetal nuchal translucency and maternal age: a multicenter project in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 645–8.Google Scholar
Brizot, ML, Carvalho, MH, Liao, AW, et al. First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities by fetal nuchal translucency in a Brazilian population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 652–5.Google Scholar
Audibert, F, Dommergues, M, Benattar, C, et al. Screening for Down syndrome using first-trimester ultrasound and second-trimester maternal serum markers in a low-risk population: a prospective longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 26–31.Google Scholar
Wayda, K, Kereszturi, A, Orvos, H, et al. Four years experience of first-trimester nuchal translucency screening for fetal aneuploidies with increasing regional availability. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80: 1104–9.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH. Screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 313–21.Google Scholar
Cuckle, H. Integrating Down’s syndrome screening. Curr Opin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 13: 175–81.Google Scholar
Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH. Assessment of risks. In Ultrasound Markers for Fetal Chromosomal Defects. Carnforth: Parthenon, 1996, pp. 63–120.Google Scholar
Sherrod, C, Sebire, NJ, Soares, W, Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH. Prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 18 at the 10–14-week ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 387–90.Google Scholar
Snijders, RJ, Sebire, NJ, Nayar, R, Souka, A, Nicolaides, KH. Increased nuchal translucency in trisomy 13 fetuses at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Am J Med Genet 1999; 86: 205–7.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Brown, R, Southall, T, Nicolaides, KH. Detection of sex chromosome abnormalities by nuchal translucency screening at 10–14 weeks. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 581–4.Google Scholar
Jauniaux, E, Brown, R, Snijders, RJ, Noble, P, Nicolaides, KH. Early prenatal diagnosis of triploidy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 550–4.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, BR, Frigoletto, FD. Soft tissue nuchal fold in the second-trimester fetus: standards for normal measurements compared with those in Down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 1146–9.Google Scholar
Senat, MV, De Keersmaecker, B, Audibert, F, et al. Pregnancy outcome in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and normal karyotype. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 345–9.Google Scholar
Souka, AP, Krampl, E, Bakalis, S, Heath, V, Nicolaides, KH. Outcome of pregnancy in chromosomally normal fetuses with increased nuchal translucency in the first trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 9–17.Google Scholar
Hyett, JA, Perdu, M, Sharland, G, Snijders, R, Nicolaides, KH. Increased nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks of gestation as a marker for major cardiac defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 242–6.Google Scholar
Hyett, JA, Perdu, M, Sharland, G, Snijders, R, Nicolaides, KH. Using fetal nuchal translucency to screen for major congenital cardiac defects at 10–14 weeks of gestation: population based cohort study. BMJ 1999: 318: 81–5.Google Scholar
Mavrides, E, Cobian-Sanchez, F, Tekay, A, et al. Limitations of using first-trimester nuchal translucency measurement in routine screening for major congenital heart defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 106–10.Google Scholar
Michailidis, GD, Economides, DL. Nuchal translucency measurement and pregnancy outcome in karyotypically normal fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 102–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolaides, KH, Heath, V, Cicero, S. Increased fetal nuchal translucency at 11–14 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 308–15.Google Scholar
Hiippala, A, Eronen, M, Taipale, P, Salonen, R, Hiilesmaa, V. Fetal nuchal translucency and normal chromosomes: a long-term follow-up study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 18–22.Google Scholar
Michailidis, GD, Papageorgiou, P, Economides, DL. Assessment of fetal anatomy in the first trimester using two- and three-dimensional ultrasound. Br J Radiol 2002; 75: 215–19.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, JM, Tinnemans, BW, van Zalen-Sprock, RM. Outcome and early childhood follow-up of chromosomally normal fetuses with increased nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 11: 407–9.Google Scholar
Adekunle, O, Gopee, A, el-Sayed, M, Thilaganathan, B. Increased first trimester nuchal translucency: pregnancy and infant outcomes after routine screening for Down’s syndrome in an unselected antenatal population. Br J Radiol 1999; 72: 457–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, CJ, Stevenson, RE, Aughton, D, et al. Evaluation of mental retardation: recommendations of a consensus conference: American College of Medical Genetics. Am J Med Genet 1997; 72: 468–77.Google Scholar
Ville, Y. Nuchal translucency in the first trimester of pregnancy: ten years on and still a pain in the neck? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 5–8.Google Scholar
Cha’ban, FK, Van Splunder, P, Los, FJ, Wladimiroff, JW. Fetal outcome in nuchal translucency with emphasis on normal fetal karyotype. Prenat Diagn 1996; 16: 537–41.Google Scholar
Hillman, SC, Pretlove, S, Coomarasamy, A, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 6–14.Google Scholar
Shaffer, LG, Coppinger, J, Alliman, S, et al. Comparison of microarray-based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 789–95.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 446: array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 1161–3.Google Scholar
Cicero, S, Curcio, P, Papageorghiou, A, Sonek, J, Nicolaides, K. Absence of nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11–14 weeks of gestation: an observational study. Lancet 2001; 358: 1665–7.Google Scholar
Cicero, S, Longo, D, Rembouskos, G, Sacchini, C, Nicolaides, KH. Absent nasal bone at 11–14 weeks of gestation and chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 31–5.Google Scholar
Cicero, S, Rembouskos, G, Vandecruys, H, Hogg, M, Nicolaides, KH. Likelihood ratio for trisomy 21 in fetuses with absent nasal bone at the 11–14-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 218–23.Google Scholar
Senat, MV, Bernard, JP, Boulvain, M, Ville, Y. Intra- and interoperator variability in fetal nasal bone assessment at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 138–41.Google Scholar
Otaño, L, Aiello, H, Igarzábal, L, Matayoshi, T, Gadow, EC. Association between first trimester absence of fetal nasal bone on ultrasound and Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 930–2.Google Scholar
Zoppi, MA, Ibba, RM, Axiana, C, et al. Absence of fetal nasal bone and aneuploidies at first-trimester nuchal translucency screening in unselected pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 496–500.Google Scholar
Orlandi, F, Bilardo, CM, Campogrande, M, et al. Measurement of nasal bone length at 11–14 weeks of pregnancy and its potential role in Down syndrome risk assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 36–9.Google Scholar
Viora, E, Masturzo, B, Errante, G, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of fetal nasal bone at 11 to 14 weeks in a consecutive series of 1906 fetuses. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 784–7.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH. Nuchal translucency and other first-trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 45–67.Google Scholar
Maiz, N, Valencia, C, Kagan, KO, Wright, D, Nicolaides, KH. Ductus venosus Doppler in screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 and Turner syndrome at 11–13 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 512–17.Google Scholar
Matias, A, Gomes, C, Flack, N, Montenegro, N, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for chromosomal abnormalities at 11–14 weeks: the role of ductus venosus blood flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 2: 380–4.Google Scholar
Antolin, E, Comas, C, Torrents, M, et al. The role of ductus venosus blood flow assessment in screening for chromosomal abnormalities at 10–16 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 295–300.Google Scholar
Mavrides, E, Sairam, S, Hollis, B, Thilaganathan, B. Screening for aneuploidy in the first trimester by assessment of blood flow in the ductus venosus. BJOG 2002; 109: 1015–19.Google Scholar
Murta, CG, Moron, AF, Avila, MA, Weiner, CP. Application of ductus venosus Doppler velocimetry for the detection of fetal aneuploidy in the first trimester of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther 2002; 1: 308–14.Google Scholar
Zoppi, MA, Putzolu, M, Ibba, RM, Floris, M, Monni, G. First trimester ductus venosus velocimetry in relation to nuchal translucency thickness and fetal karyotype. Fetal Diagn Ther 2002; 17: 52–7.Google Scholar
Borrell, A, Martinez, JM, Seres, A, et al. Ductus venosus assessment at the time of nuchal translucency measurement in the detection of fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 921–6.Google Scholar
Huggon, IC, DeFigueiredo, DB, Allan, LD. Tricuspid regurgitation in the diagnosis of chromosomal anomalies in the fetus at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Heart 2003; 89: 1071–3.Google Scholar
Faiola, S, Tsoi, E, Huggon, IC, Allan, LD, Nicolaides, KH. Likelihood ratio for trisomy 21 in fetuses with tricuspid regurgitation at the 11 to 13+6-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 22–7.Google Scholar
Sonek, J, Borenstein, M, Dagklis, T, Persico, N, Nicolaides, KH. Frontomaxillary facial angle in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11–13(6) weeks. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 271.e1–e4.Google Scholar
Liao, AW, Snijders, R, Geerts, L, Spencer, K, Nicolaides, KH. Fetal heart rate in chromosomally abnormal fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 610–13.Google Scholar
Cicero, S, Curcio, P, Rembouskos, G, Sonek, J, Nicolaides, KH. Maxillary length at 11–14 weeks of gestation in fetuses with trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 19–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sacchini, C, El-Sheikhah, A, Cicero, S, Rembouskos, G, Nicolaides, KH. Ear length in trisomy 21 fetuses at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 460–3.Google Scholar
Longo, D, DeFigueiredo, D, Cicero, S, Sacchini, C, Nicolaides, KH. Femur and humerus length in trisomy 21 fetuses at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 143–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuchter, K, Hafner, E, Stangl, G, Ogris, E, Philipp, K. Sequential screening for trisomy 21 by nuchal translucency measurement in the first trimester and maternal serum biochemistry in the second trimester in a low-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 23–5.Google Scholar
Cuckle, H. Biochemical screening for Down syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 92: 97–101.Google Scholar
Rozenberg, P, Malagrida, L, Cuckle, H, et al. Down’s syndrome screening with nuchal translucency at 12(+0)–14(+0) weeks and maternal serum markers at 14(+1)–17(+0) weeks: a prospective study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1093–8.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Spencer, CE, Power, M, Dawson, C, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester using ultrasound and maternal serum biochemistry in a one stop clinic: a review of three years’ prospective experience. BJOG 2003; 110: 281–6.Google Scholar
Thilaganathan, B, Slack, A, Wathen, NC. Effect of first-trimester nuchal translucency on second-trimester maternal serum biochemical screening for Down’s syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 261–4.Google Scholar
Wapner, R, Thom, E, Simpson, JL, et al. First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1405–13.Google Scholar
Malone, F, Wald, N, Canick, J, et al. First and second trimester evaluation of risk (FASTER) trial: principal results of the NICHD multicenter Down syndrome screening study (abstract 1). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: S56.Google Scholar
Ekelund, CK, Jørgensen, FS, Petersen, OB, Sundberg, K, Tabor, A. Impact of a new national screening policy for Down’s syndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ 2008; 337: a2547. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2547.Google Scholar
Norton, ME, Jacobsson, B, Swamy, GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1589–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, H, Gao, Y, Jiang, F, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146,958 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 530–8.Google Scholar
Taylor-Phillips, S, Freeman, K, Geppert, J, et al. Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (1): e010002.Google Scholar
Canick, JA, Palomaki, GE, Kloza, EM, Lambert-Messerlian, GM, Haddow, JE. The impact of maternal plasma DNA fetal fraction on next generation sequencing tests for common fetal aneuploidies. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 667–74.Google Scholar
McCullough, RM, Almasri, EA, Guan, X, et al. Non-invasive prenatal chromosomal aneuploidy testing – clinical experience: 100,000 clinical samples. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 (10): e109173.Google Scholar
Hall, AL, Drendel, HM, Verbrugge, JL, et al. Positive cell-free fetal DNA testing for trisomy 13 reveals confined placental mosaicism. Genet Med 2013; 15: 729–32.Google Scholar
Gil, MM, Accurti, V, Santacruz, B, Plana, MN, Nicolaides, KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 302–14.Google Scholar
Liao, H, Liu, S, Wang, H. Performance of non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies: a meta-analysis. Prenat Diagn 2017; 37: 874–82.Google Scholar
Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale. Is non-invasive genetic prenatal testing ready for use? The evidence, the costs and the ethics addressed in a HTA with recommendations for practice and for research. June 2015. http://assr.regione.emilia-romagna.it/it/servizi/pubblicazioni/corsi-convegni/non-invasive-genetic-prenatal-testing (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
Health Council of the Netherlands. Prenatal screening, 2016. Publication no. 2016/19. https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/en/task-and-procedure/areas-of-activity/prevention/prenatal-screening (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
Gregg, AR, Skotko, BG, Benkendorf, JL, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016; 18: 1056–65.Google Scholar
Belgian Society for Human Genetics. Good practice guidelines. www.beshg.be/index.php?page=guidelines (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
Haute Autorité de Santé. Place des tests ADN libre circulant dans le sang maternel dans le dépistage de la trisomie 21 foetale. www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_2768510/fr/place-des-tests-adn-libre-circulant-dans-le-sang-maternel-dans-le-depistage-de-la-trisomie-21-foetale (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
International, FIGO Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. www.figo.org (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://nfog.org (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
Schmid, M, Klaritsch, P, Arzt, W, et al. Cell-free DNA testing for fetal chromosomal anomalies in clinical practice: Austrian–German–Swiss recommendations for non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT). Ultraschall Med 2015; 36: 507–10.Google Scholar
Salomon, LJ, Alfirevic, Z, Audibert, F, 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
Benn, P, Borrell, A, Chiu, RWK, et al. Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35: 725–34.Google Scholar
NHS RAPID project. NIPT for Down syndrome. www.rapid.nhs.uk/guides-to-nipd-nipt/nipt-for-down-syndrome (accessed January 2018).Google Scholar
Yagel, S, Achiron, R, Ron, M, Revel, A, Anteby, E. Transvaginal ultrasonography at early pregnancy cannot be used alone for targeted organ ultrasonographic examination in a high–risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 971–5.Google Scholar
Rottem, S, Bronshtein, M. Transvaginal sonographic diagnosis of congenital anomalies between 9 weeks and 16 weeks, menstrual age. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18: 307–14.Google Scholar
Rottem, S. Early detection of structural anomalies and markers of chromosomal aberrations by transvaginal ultrasonography. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 7: 122–5.Google Scholar
Taipale, P, Ammala, M, Salonen, R, Hiilesmaa, V. Learning curve in ultrasonographic screening for selected fetal structural anomalies in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 273–8.Google Scholar
Bernard, JP, Cuckle, HS, Bernard, MA, et al. Combined screening for open spina bifida at 11–13 weeks using fetal biparietal diameter and maternal serum markers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 223.e1–5.Google Scholar
Bernard, JP, Suarez, B, Rambaud, C, Muller, F, Ville, Y. Prenatal diagnosis of neural tube defect before 12 weeks’ gestation: direct and indirect ultrasonographic semeiology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 406–9.Google Scholar
Karl, K, Benoit, B, Entezami, M, Heling, KS, Chaoui, R. Small biparietal diameter in fetuses with spina bifida on 11–13-week and mid-gestation ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 140–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaoui, RI, Benoit, B, Mitkowska-Wozniak, H, Heling, KS, Nicolaides, KH. Assessment of intracranial translucency (IT) in the detection of spina bifida at the 11–13-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 249–52.Google Scholar
Loureiro, T, Ushakov, F, Montenegro, N, Gielchinsky, Y, Nicolaides, KH. Cerebral ventricular system in fetuses with open spina bifida at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 620–4.Google Scholar
Achiron, R, Tadmor, O. Screening for fetal anomalies during the first trimester of pregnancy: transvaginal versus transabdominal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991; 1: 186–91.Google Scholar
Hernadi, L, Töröcsik, M. Screening for fetal anomalies in the 12th week of pregnancy by transvaginal sonography in an unselected population. Prenat Diagn 1997; 17: 753–9.Google Scholar
Economides, DL, Braithwaite, JM. First trimester ultrasonographic diagnosis of fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 53–7.Google Scholar
D’Ottavio, G, Meir, YJ, Rustico, MA, et al. Screening for fetal anomalies by ultrasound at 14 and 21 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 375–80.Google Scholar
Guariglia, L, Rosati, P. Transvaginal sonographic detection of embryonic-fetal abnormalities in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 328–32.Google Scholar
Drysdale, K, Ridley, D, Walker, K, Higgins, B, Dean, T. First-trimester pregnancy scanning as a screening tool for high-risk and abnormal pregnancies in a district general hospital setting. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22: 159–65.Google Scholar
den Hollander, NS, Wessels, MW, Niermeijer, MF, Los, FJ, Wladimiroff, JW. Early fetal anomaly scanning in a population at increased risk of abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 570–4.Google Scholar
Carvalho, MH, Brizot, ML, Lopes, LM, et al. Detection of fetal structural abnormalities at the 11–14 week ultrasound scan. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 1–4.Google Scholar
Chen, M, Lam, YH, Lee, CP, Tang, MH. Ultrasound screening of fetal structural abnormalities at 12 to 14 weeks in Hong Kong. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 92–7.Google Scholar
Taipale, P, Ammala, M, Salonen, R, Hiilesmaa, V. Two-stage ultra-sonography in screening for fetal anomalies at 13–14 and 18–22 weeks of gestation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 1141–6.Google Scholar
Markov, D, Chernev, T, Dimitrova, V, et al. [Ultrasound screening and diagnosis of fetal structural abnormalities between 11–14 gestational weeks] (Bulgarian). Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 2004; 43: 3–10.Google Scholar
McAuliffe, FM, Fong, KW, Toi, A, et al. Ultrasound detection of fetal anomalies in conjunction with first-trimester nuchal translucency screening: a feasibility study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1260–5.Google Scholar
Becker, R, Wegner, RD. Detailed screening for fetal anomalies and cardiac defects at the 11–13-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 613–18.Google Scholar
Souka, AP, Pilalis, A, Kavalakis, I, et al. Screening for major structural abnormalities at the 11- to 14-week ultrasound scan. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 393–6.Google Scholar
Saltvedt, S, Almström, H, Kublickas, M, Valentin, L, Grunewald, C. Detection of malformations in chromosomally normal fetuses by routine ultrasound at 12 or 18 weeks of gestation: a randomised controlled trial in 39,572 pregnancies. BJOG 2006; 113: 664–74.Google Scholar
Cedergren, M, Selbing, A. Detection of fetal structural abnormalities by an 11–14 week ultrasound dating scan in an unselected Swedish population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 912–15.Google Scholar
Weiner, Z, Goldstein, I, Bombard, A, Applewhite, L, Itzkovits-Eldor, J. Screening for structural fetal anomalies during the nuchal translucency ultrasound examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 181.e1–e5.Google Scholar
Dane, B, Dane, C, Sivri, D, et al. Ultrasound screening for fetal major abnormalities at 11–14 weeks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 666–70.Google Scholar
Chen, M, Lee, CP, Lam, YH, et al. Comparison of nuchal and detailed morphology ultrasound examinations in early pregnancy for fetal structural abnormality screening: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 136–46.Google Scholar
Chatzipapas, IK, Whitlow, BJ, Economides, DL. The “Mickey Mouse” sign and the diagnosis of anencephaly in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 13: 196–9.Google Scholar
Johnson, SP, Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Tunkel, S, Nicolaides, KH. Ultrasound screening for anencephaly at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9: 14–16.Google Scholar
Sepulveda, W, Dezerega, V, Be, C. First-trimester sonographic diagnosis of holoprosencephaly: value of the “butterfly” sign. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 761–5.Google Scholar
Bronshtein, M, Zimmer, EZ. Transvaginal sonographic follow-up on the formation of fetal cephalocele at 13–19 weeks’ gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 528–30.Google Scholar
van Zalen-Sprock, M, van Vugt, JMG, van der Harten, HJ, van Geijn, HP. Cephalocele and cystic hygroma: diagnosis and differentiation in the first trimester of pregnancy with transvaginal sonography. Report of two cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992; 2: 289– 92.Google Scholar
Turner, CD, Silva, S, Jeanty, P. Prenatal diagnosis of alobar holoprosencephaly at 10 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 360–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, HS, Lam, YH, Tang, MH, et al. First-trimester ultrasound diagnosis of holoprosencephaly: three case reports. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 356–9.Google Scholar
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Monteagudo, A, Santos, R. Three-dimensional inversion rendering in the first- and early second-trimester fetal brain: its use in holoprosencephaly. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 744–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buisson, O, De Keersmaecker, B, Sénat, MV, et al. Sonographic diagnosis of spina bifida at 12 weeks: heading towards indirect signs. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 290–2.Google Scholar
Blaas, HG, Eik-Nes, SH, Isaksen, C. The detection of spina bifida before 10 gestational weeks using two- and three dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 25–29.Google Scholar
Carvalho, JS, Senat, MV, Schwärzler, P, Ville, Y. Increased nuchal translucency and ventricular septal defect in the fetus. Circulation 1999; 99: E10.Google Scholar
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Warren, W, Peisner, DB, Pirrone, E. First-trimester midgut herniation: a high frequency transvaginal sonographic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 831–3.Google Scholar
van Zalen-Sprock, RM, van Vugt, JMG, van Geijn, HP. First-trimester sonography of physiological midgut herniation and early diagnosis of omphalocele. Prenat Diagn 1997; 17: 511–18.Google Scholar
Maymon, R, Jauniaux, E, Cohen, O, et al. Pregnancy outcome and infant follow-up of fetuses with abnormally increased first trimester nuchal translucency. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2023–7.Google Scholar
Pagliano, M, Mossetti, M, Ragno, P. Echographic diagnosis of omphalocele in the first trimester of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18: 658–60.Google Scholar
Liao, AW, Sebire, NJ, Geerts, L, Cicero, S, Nicolaides, KH. Megacystis at 10–14 weeks of gestation: chromosomal defects and outcome according to bladder length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 338–41.Google Scholar
Favre, R, Kohler, M, Gasser, B, Muller, F, Nisand, I. Early fetal megacystis between 11 and 15 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 402–6.Google Scholar
Carroll, SG, Soothill, PW, Tizard, J, Kyle, PM. Vesicocentesis at 10–14 weeks of gestation for treatment of fetal megacystis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 366–70.Google Scholar
Bronshtein, M, Amit, A, Achiron, R, Noy, I, Blumenfeld, Z. The early prenatal sonographic diagnosis of renal agenesis: techniques and possible pitfalls. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14: 291–7.Google Scholar
Bronshtein, M, Bar-Hava, I, Blumenfeld, Z. Clues and pitfalls in the early prenatal diagnosis of “late onset” infantile polycystic kidney. Prenat Diagn 1992; 12: 293–8.Google Scholar
Fisk, NM, Vaughan, J, Smidt, M, Wigglesworth, J. Transvaginal ultrasound recognition of nuchal edema in the first-trimester diagnosis of achondrogenesis. J Clin Ultrasound 1991; 19: 586–90.Google Scholar
Soothill, PW, Vuthiwong, C, Rees, H. Achondrogenesis type 2 diagnosed by transvaginal ultrasound at 12 weeks’ gestation. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 523–8.Google Scholar
Rembouskos, G, Cicero, S, Longo, D, Sacchini, C, Nicolaides, KH. Single umbilical artery at 11–14 weeks: relation to chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 567–70.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, JS, Singer, DB, eds. Textbook of Fetal and Perinatal Pathology. Amsterdam: Blackwell, 1991.Google Scholar
Sepulveda, W, Sebire, NJ, Hughes, K, Odibo, A, Nicolaides, KH. The lambda sign at 10–14 weeks of gestation as a predictor of chorionicity in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 421–3.Google Scholar
Carroll, SG, Soothill, PW, Abdel-Fattah, SA, et al. Prediction of chorionicity in twin pregnancies at 10–14 weeks of gestation. BJOG 2002; 109: 182–6.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, E, Hardwick, C, Maharaj, S, et al. Chorionicity in twin pregnancies: how accurate are we? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 350–2.Google Scholar
Bora, SA, Papageorghiou, AT, Bottomley, C, Kirk, E, Bourne, T. Reliability of transvaginal ultrasonography at 7–9 weeks’ gestation in the determination of chorionicity and amnionicity in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 618–21.Google Scholar
Sepulveda, W, Sebire, NJ, Hughes, K, Kalogeropoulos, A, Nicolaides, KH. Evolution of the lambda or twin/chorionic peak sign in dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 439–41.Google Scholar
Shetty, A, Smith, AP. The sonographic diagnosis of chorionicity. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25: 735–9.Google Scholar
Moon, MH, Park, SY, Song, MJ, et al. Diamniotic twin pregnancies with a single placental mass: Prediction of chorionicity at 11 to 14 weeks of gestation. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 1011–15.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Hughes, K, Sepulveda, W, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for trisomy 21 in twin pregnancies by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks of gestation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 999–1003.Google Scholar
Sepulveda, W, Wong, AE, Casasbuenas, A. Nuchal translucency and nasal bone in first-trimester ultrasound screening for aneuploidy in multiple pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 152–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandecruys, H, Faiola, S, Auer, M, Sebire, N, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for trisomy 21 in monochorionic twins by measurement of fetal nuchal translucency thickness. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 551–3.Google Scholar
Spencer, K, Kagan, KO, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for trisomy 21 in twin pregnancies in the first trimester: an update of the impact of chorionicity on maternal serum markers. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 49–52.Google Scholar
Spencer, K. Screening for trisomy 21 in twin pregnancies in the first trimester: does chorionicity impact on maternal serum free β-hCG or PAPP-A levels? Prenat Diagn 2001; 21: 715–17.Google Scholar
Wald, NJ, Rish, S, Hackshaw, AK. Combining nuchal translucency and serum markers in prenatal screening for Down syndrome in twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 588–92.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, D’Ercole, C, Hughes, K, Carvalho, M, Nicolaides, KH. Increased fetal nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks as a predictor of severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 86–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebire, NJ, Souka, A, Skentou, H, Geerts, L, Nicolaides, KH. Early prediction of severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2008–10.Google Scholar
Kagan, KO, Gazzoni, A, Sepulveda-Gonzalez, G, Sotiriadis, A, Nicolaides, KH. Discordance in nuchal translucency thickness in the prediction of severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 527–32.Google Scholar
El Kateb, A, Nasr, B, Nassar, M, Bernard, JP, Ville, Y. First-trimester ultrasound examination and the outcome of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2007; 27: 922–5.Google Scholar
Kenneson, A, Cannon, MJ. Review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Rev Med Virol 2007; 17: 253–76.Google Scholar
Faure-Bardon, V, Magny, JF, Parodi, M, et al. Sequelae of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) following maternal primary infection are limited to those acquired in the first trimester of pregnancy. Clin Infect Dis 2018 Dec 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy1128. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
Pass, RF, Fowler, KB, Boppana, SB, Britt, WJ, Stagno, S. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection following first trimester maternal infection: symptoms at birth and outcome. J Clin Virol 2006; 35: 216–20.Google Scholar
Comité Nationale Technique de l’Echographie de Dépistage Prénatal. Rapport du Comité national technique de l’échographie de dépistage prénatal. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/054000356/index.shtml (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
South Africa Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (SASUOG). The anomaly scan, 2015 http://sasuog.org.za/TheAnomalyScan.asp (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine. ASUM Guidelines For The Mid Trimester Obstetric Scan. 2012. http://www.asum.com.au/newsite/Files/Documents/Policies/updated/D2_Policy.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Association Belge Francophone d’Ultrasonologie Médicale (ABeFUM) http://www.abefum.be/FR/Home.aspx (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Cargill, Y, Morin, L, Content of a complete routine second trimester obstetrical ultrasound examination and report. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017; 39(8): e144 –9.Google Scholar
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations Obstetric Ultrasound, 2013. http://www.aium.org/resources/guidelines/obstetric.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obsteterie & Gynaecologie (NVOG). Modelprotocol 3 – Structureel Echoscopisch Onderzoek (SEO). 2005. www.nvog.nl (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Società Italiana di Ecografia Ostetrico Ginecologica (SIEOG). Linee Guida SIEOG, 2015. http://www.sigo.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LineeGuidaSieog_2015.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ISUOG). Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan, 2010. http://www.isuog.org/NR/rdonlyres/EA865840-6CA3-45AC-9E99-FBAF775119A9/0/ISUOGGuidelinesmidtriscan20101210.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy, protocols, standards and training. Supplement to ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities, 2010. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/careers-training/specialty-training-curriculum/ultrasound-training/ultrasound-module-intermediate-ultrasound-of-normal-fetal-anatomy (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
NHS Screening Programmes. Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Programme Handbook June 2015. London: NHS, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456654/FASP_programme_handbook_August_2015.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Schwärzler, P, Senat, MV, Holden, D, et al. Feasibility of the second-trimester fetal ultrasound examination in an unselected population at 18, 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 92–7.Google Scholar
Ewigman, BG, Crane, JP, Frigoletto, FD, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 821–7.Google Scholar
Fuchs, IB, Müller, H, Abdul-Khaliq, H, et al. Immediate and long-term outcomes in children with prenatal diagnosis of selected isolated congenital heart defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 38–43.Google Scholar
Bonnet, D, Coltri, A, Butera, G, et al. Detection of transposition of the great arteries in fetuses reduces neonatal morbidity and mortality. Circulation 1999; 99: 916–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, O, Burch, M, Manning, N, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of coarctation of the aorta improves survival and reduces morbidity. Heart 2002; 87: 67–9.Google Scholar
Calderon, J, Angeard, N, Moutier, S, et al. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on neurocognitive outcomes in children with transposition of the great arteries. J Pediatr 2012; 161: 94–98.e1.Google Scholar
Tracy, ET, Mears, SE, Smith, PB, et al. Protocolized approach to the management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: benefits of reducing variability in care. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45: 1343–8.Google Scholar
Antonoff, MB, Hustead, VA, Groth, SS, Schmeling, DJ. Protocolized management of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: effect on survival. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46: 39–46.Google Scholar
Lazar, DA, Cass, DL, Rodriguez, MA, et al. Impact of prenatal evaluation and protocol-based perinatal management on congenital diaphragmatic hernia outcomes. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46: 808–13.Google Scholar
Wald, NJ, Cuckle, H, Densem, JW, et al. Maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome in early pregnancy. BMJ 1988; 297: 883–7.Google Scholar
Phillips, OP, Elias, S, Shulman, LP, et al. Maternal serum screening for fetal Down syndrome in women less than 35 years of age using alpha-fetoprotein, hCG, and unconjugated estriol: a prospective 2-year study. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 353–8.Google Scholar
Malone, FD, Canick, J, Ball, RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2001–11.Google Scholar
Wald, NJ, Rodeck, C, Hackshaw, AK, et al. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (11): 1–77.Google Scholar
Vora, NL, Powell, B, Brandt, A, et al. Prenatal exome sequencing in anomalous fetuses: new opportunities and challenges. Genet Med 2017; 19: 1207–16. doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.33.Google Scholar
Yang, Y, Muzny, DM, Reid, JG, et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1502–11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306555.Google Scholar
Shaffer, LG, Rosenfeld, JA, Dabell, MP, et al. Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32: 986–95. doi: 10.1002/pd.3943.Google Scholar
Talkowski, ME, Ordulu, Z, Pillalamarri, V, et al. Clinical diagnosis by whole-genome sequencing of a prenatal sample. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2226–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208594.Google Scholar
Lord, J, McMullan, DJ, Eberhardt, RY, et al. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet 2019; 393: 747–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31940-8.Google Scholar
International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis; Society for Maternal and Fetal Medicine; Perinatal Quality Foundation. Joint position statement … on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38: 6–9. doi: 10.1002/pd.5195.Google Scholar