Obstetrical Sonography :
The Best Way to Terrify a Pregnant Woman
Roy A. Filly, M.D .
I have just reached the 30th anniversary of the first obstetrical sonogram I performed.
Even having witnessed each of the technological advancements in sonography over
those three decades, it is still difficult to comprehend the enormous improvements in
image quality that have occurred. These improvements have brought sonography from
a “promising” diagnostic tool to a mainstay of modern imaging. However, nowhere in
medicine has this technique had a more profound impact than in the field of
obstetrics. Thirty years ago there was essentially no such thing as obstetrical imaging
and prenatal diagnosis was in its infancy .
During this time obstetrical sonography went from a medical oddity to a test of such
great value that several European countries perform at least two obstetrical sonograms
in every pregnant woman and 70% of modern American mothers have had a
sonogram during their pregnancy (1,2). Obstetrical sonograms provide a wealth of
useful information to the primary care giver. Some of these benefits are easily
measured: accuracy of estimating menstrual age, accuracy of predicting twins, etc.
Others are more difficult to measure but we all agree are nonetheless of great benefit.
One of the most important of these is providing “reassurance” to the expectant
mother. In our Obstetrical Department the phrase “for size and dates and general
reassurance” seems to be pasted on nearly all sonogram request forms. Personally, the
opportunity to say, “everything looks fine” to an expectant mother was one of the
perks of my job. I can see the wave of relief wash across her face. It’s always a
touching moment followed by “thank you, Doctor .”
Today, I no longer feel that way. There are a growing number of patients where I
dread having to speak to her. I have reviewed the sonographer’s scans and they
disclose a finding that will send the mother into a tailspin of confusion and worry. I’m
not talking about holoprosencephaly or bilateral renal agenesis. I have a great deal of
experience discussing such devastating diagnoses with pregnant women. And while
the news is sad, I always feel that I am providing the family with a great service.
Nothing can change the fact that her fetus has a mortal anomaly. There will
necessarily be a grieving period and tears will undoubtedly flow, but beginning that
grieving period at the earliest possible date in her pregnancy is “good medicine .”
Tomorrow when I return to work the odds are I will have to speak to a mother-to-be
about an “abnormality” that I see on her sonogram and I won’t know what to tell her.
I am talking about “abnormal” findings on her sonogram which loosely fit under the
general heading of “Down syndrome markers” (some are actually better as markers of
other trisomy syndromes). I am not referring to atrio-ventricular canal or duodenal
atresia. These are strong indicators that the Down syndrome may be present. But
Down syndrome or not, the fetus still has a serious anomaly and the detection of that
anomaly is a benefit. What I am afraid to encounter tomorrow is an “abnormality”
which is not really abnormal: choroid plexus cysts (3-31), echogenic intracardiac foci
(32-36), mild pyelectasis (37-41), and echogenic bowel (42-45) . If her fetus has one
of these “abnormalities” but doesn’t have the Down syndrome, then her fetus is
normal. Excuse me, I’m certain I will be criticized if I don’t tell the mother-to-be that
in the absence of the Down syndrome and the presence of echogenic bowel she must
worry about her fetus having cystic fibrosis, developing intrauterine growth
restriction, having a premature birth, a fetus with a cytomegalovirus infection, or a
fetus who may die in her womb .)94-94( Alternatively, if her fetus has mild
pyelectasis and a normal karyotype her newborn child is at risk for urinary tract
problems, must take antibiotics after birth, get an extensive and uncomfortable workup for vesico-ureteral reflux and must be followed-up for many months to ensure
normalcy (50 .)
The sheer numbers of papers written on the subject only add credibility to their
importance (3-49). Certainly, some authors disagree as to the importance of one or the
other of these findings (51,52). Unfortunately, the physician performing a routine
sonogram and finding one of these “markers” is hard pressed to make a determination
regarding which expert to believe. Inevitably they choose the “safest” path; at least,
“safest” from a medico-legal perspective. The mother is simply going to have to deal
with the possibility that her fetus may have the Down syndrome or worse .
These Down syndrome markers are common findings in normal fetuses, particularly
the echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF). EIF occurs in approximately 5% (it is
probably closer to 10%) of fetuses (53). The choroid plexus cyst occurs in 1-2% of
fetuses (3), echogenic bowel occurs in approximately 1% of all second-trimester
fetuses (44) (many more if high frequency transducers are employed) and mild
pyelectasis in 3% of normal fetuses (54). If you have a busy sonographic practice
seeing 10-20 pregnant woman daily, you will most likely see one or the other of these
“abnormalities” every day .
The researchers that originally described these findings did so in women at high risk
to have a fetus with the Down syndrome (55-65). These were pregnant women older
than 35 years or who had a positive “triple marker” screening test for the Down
syndrome. In this group of women the application of these findings increases the
probability of finding Down syndrome fetuses and they perform admirably in this
regard. However, these women have already been counseled that amniocentesis is
appropriate in their case. They are having a sonogram in order to downgrade their risk
to a level where they may appropriately forego amniocentesis (66-76). When
examining a mother-to-be in this circumstance I fully recognize the value of
identifying these “abnormalities” and can counsel these women appropriately that
their already substantial risk is further increased if I find one or more of these
features. More importantly to her, if no markers for the Down syndrome are found her
level of risk may be significantly reduced (67, 72 .)37 ,
But then investigators (with the best of intentions, I am certain) appear to have taken a
misstep. These findings when seen in a woman with a low risk of having a Down
syndrome fetus were used to upgrade her risk (40, 77). The consumers of this
information ,the physicians in the trenches, read these scientific papers and then
identify these “abnormalities” during a routine sonogram. What are they to tell the
patient? This woman hasn’t already been counseled. She is having a sonogram for
“reassurance” (forget that now). Her husband, children and parents are with her.
There is a party atmosphere. The videotape is rolling. Soon the giggling and finger
pointing at the screen will cease. The questions will change abruptly from “is that the
heartbeat?” or “is that the penis there?” to “are you saying that my child is going to be
mentally retarded ”?
Without doubt you have now added cost to the management of that pregnancy. The
patient may choose to undergo amniocentesis. She may be referred to a prenatal
diagnostic center for a detailed fetal sonogram and genetic counseling. The
innumerable hours of counseling by primary care givers and general sonologists to
explain the “meaning” of this finding are not counted in these additional costs (78).
Nor are the heartaches of the parents-to-be counted in this cost analysis. If they forego
the amniocentesis (clearly the correct choice, in my opinion) then they must live with
residual doubt for the remainder of the pregnancy. Does my fetus have the Down
syndrome? Maybe I should have had the amniocentesis. The enjoyment of the
anticipation of the birth of their son or daughter is now replaced with anxiety .
Well you say, look at all the good these findings have accomplished. Some bad must
go along with all that good. Possibly I am the exception (I doubt it), but I don’t see
“all the good”. I am a simple-minded physician. I like it when a sonographic finding
passes the “Thank God Test”. The Thank God Test is passed when I say to myself
“thank God” for that finding. If I hadn’t seen it I would have completely missed this
devastating abnormality. I have no instance in my recollection where one or the other
of these abnormalities was the sole reason I was able to recognize a fetus with the
Down syndrome in a low risk patient. (This presumes, of course, that a reasonably
careful sonogram following the AIUM guidelines has been performed.) Obviously
someone has had such an experience: just not me. From my vantage point the
identification of these “abnormalities” in low risk women has crossed the line of
“more harm than good .”
What are we trying to accomplish with the sonographic observation of “Down
syndrome markers” in low risk women? Twenty percent of Down syndrome fetuses
are born to mothers 35 years or older. We have known for many years that we must be
suspicious in this group. Maternal serum screening programs for the so-called “triple
markers” in women <35 years of age has become an effective screening test, with a
sensitivity of 57% (79). Of the residual fetuses with the Down syndrome,
sonographically apparent major anomalies are present in 25% - 33%. Further, of the
residual fetuses with the Down syndrome a moderate number will simply die in utero.
At birth, the incidence of trisomy 21 is 33% lower than it is at 15 - 20 weeks (80).
Think about it! For the tiny residual number of Down syndrome fetuses that may
potentially come to light by chasing down every last “marker” we intend to put at
least 10% of all pregnant women with perfectly normal fetuses through a great deal of
worry .
So then, what should I do tomorrow? Should I have the courage of my convictions
and simply ignore these features? I wish I had that courage, but I don’t. Even with my
considerable “clout” in the world of obstetrical sonography, I cannot unilaterally
ignore the sonographic medical literature. That is not how American medicine works .
I am confident that I am not alone in my concerns regarding this issue. I further
believe that the authors who did this excellent research in the “high risk” population
are becoming aware that these features are not proving as beneficial in the “low risk”
population as they had hoped. It is time for the American Institute of Ultrasound in
Medicine or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology to convene a panel
of experts to analyze the data on this issue and publish a position paper on the
practicality of employing Down syndrome “markers” in low risk women at the
soonest possible date .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------References
.1Kazerooni EA, Trever K, Bree RL, VanDeVen CJ, Wise CG, Sonnad SS. Patients’
perception on the use of screening ultrasound during pregnancy. Radiology 1997,
205(P): 224-5 (Abstract .)
.2Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain RP, McNellis D. Effect
of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome: RADIUS study. NEJM. 1993,
329: 821-7 .
.7Benacerraf BR, Harlow B, Frigoletto FD. Are choroid plexus cysts an indication
for second-trimester amniocentesis? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990, 162: 1001-6 .
.9Achiron R, Barkai G, Katznelson B-M, Mashiach S. Fetal lateral ventricle choroid
plexus cysts: the dilemma of amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 1991, 78: 815-8 .
.5Benacerraf BR, Laboda LA. Cyst of the fetal choroid plexus: a normal variant? Am
J Obstet Gynecol 1989, 160: 319-321 .
.4Chan L, Hixson JL, Laifer SA, Marchese SG, Martin JG, Hill LM. A Sonographic
and karyotypic study of second-trimester fetal choroid plexus cysts. Obstet Gynecol
1989, 73: 703-6 .
.3Chinn DH, Miller EI, Worthy LM, Towers CV. Sonographically detected fetal
choroid plexus cysts: frequency and association with aneuploidy. J Ultrasound Med
1991,10: 255-8 .
.8Chitkara U, Cogswell C, Norton K, Wilkins IA, Mehalek K, Berkowitz, RL.
Choroid plexus cysts in the fetus: a benign anatomic variant or pathologic entity?
Report of 41 cases and review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol 1988, 72: 185-9 .
.4Clark SL, DeVore GR, Sabey PL. Prenatal diagnosis of cysts of the fetal choroid
plexus. Obstet Gynecol 1988, 72: 585-7 .
.11DeRoo TR, Harris RD, Sargent SK, Denholm TA, Crow HC. Fetal choroid plexus
cysts: prevalence, clinical significance, and sonographic appearance. AJR 1988, 151:
1179-81 .
.11Gabrielli S, Reece A, Pilu G, Perolo A, Rizzo N, Bovicelli L, Hobbins JC. The
clinical significance of prenatally diagnosed choroid plexus cysts. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 1989, 160: 1207-10 .
.12Gray DL, Winborn RC, Suessen TL, Crane JP. Is genetic amniocentesis warranted
when isolated choroid plexus cysts are found? Prenat Diagn 1996, 16: 983-90 .
.17Gross SJ, Shulman LP, Tolley EA, Emerson DS, Felker RE, Simpson JL, Elias S.
Isolated fetal choroid plexus cysts and trisomy 18: a review and meta-analysis. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1995, 172: 83-7 .
.19Hertzberg BS, Kay HH, Bowie JD. Fetal choroid plexus lesions: relationship of
antenatal sonographic appearance to clinical outcome. J Ultrasound Med 1989, 8: 7782 .
.15Howard RJ, Tuck SM, Long J, Thomas VA. The significance of choroid plexus
cysts in fetuses at 18 - 20 weeks. An indication for amniocentesis? Prenatal Diagnosis
1992, 12: 685-8 .
.14Kupferminc MJ, Tamura RK, Sabbagha RE, Parilla BV, Cohen LS, Pergament E.
Isolated choroid plexus cyst(s): an indication for amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1994, 171: 1068-71 .
.13Nadel AS, Bromley BS, Frigoletto FD, Estroff JA, Benacerraf BR. Isolated
choroid plexus cysts in the second-trimester fetus: is amniocentesis really indicated?
Radiology 1992, 185: 545-8 .
.18Nava S, Godmilow L, Reeser S, Ludomirsky A, Donnenfeld AE. Significance of
sonographically detected second-trimester choroid plexus cysts: a series of 211 cases
and a review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994, 4: 448-51 .
.14Ostlere SJ, Irving HC, Lilford RJ. Fetal choroid plexus cysts: a report of 100
cases. Radiology 1990, 175: 753-5 .
.21Perpignano MC, Cohen HL, Klein VR, Mandel FS, Streltzoff J, Chervenak FA,
Goldman MA. Fetal choroid plexus cysts: beware the smaller cyst. Radiology 1992,
182: 715-7 .
.21Platt LD, Carlson DE, Medearis AL, Walla CA. Fetal choroid plexus cysts in the
second trimester of pregnancy: a cause for concern. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991, 161:
1652-6 .
.22Porto M, Murata Y, Warneke LA, Keegan Jr KA. Fetal choroid plexus cysts: an
independent risk factor for chromosomal anomalies. J Clin Ultrasound 1993, 21: 1038.
.27Shields LE, Uhrich SB, Easterling TR, Cyr DR, Mack LA. Isolated fetal choroid
plexus cysts and karyotype analysis: is it necessary? J Ultrasound Med 1996, 15: 38994 .
.29Thorpe-Beeston JG, Gosden M, Nicolaides KH. Choroid plexus cysts and
chromosomal defects. Br J Radiol 1990; 63: 783-786 .
.25Twining P, Zuccollo J, Clewes J, Swallow J. Fetal choroid plexus cysts: a
prospective study and review of the literature. Brit J Rad 1991, 64: 98-102 .
.24Walkinshaw S, Pilling D, Spriggs A. Isolated choroid plexus cysts - the need for
routine offer of karyotyping. Prenat. Diagnosis 1994, 14: 663-7 .
.23Zerres K, Schuler H, Gembruch U, Bald R, Hansmann M, Schwanitz G.
Chromosomal findings in fetuses with prenatally diagnosed cysts of the choroid
plexus. Hum Genet. 1992, 89: 301-304 .
.28Gupta, JK, Cave M, Lilford RF, Farrell TA, Irving HC, Mason G, Hau CM.
Clinical significance of fetal choroid plexus cysts. Lancet 1995, 346: 724-9 .
.24Bromley B, Lieberman E, Benacerraf BR. Choroid plexus cysts: not associated
with Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 18: 232-5 .
.71Gratton RJ, Hogge WA, Aston CE. Choroid plexus cysts and trisomy 18: risk
modification based on maternal age and multiple-marker screening. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 1996, 175: 1493-7 .
.71Snijders RJM, Shawa L, Nicolaides KH. Fetal choroid plexus cysts and trisomy
18: assessment of risk based on ultrasound findings and maternal age. Prenat Diagn
1994, 14: 1119-27 .
.72Bromley B, Lieberman E, Laboda LA, Benacerraf BR. Echogenic intracardiac
focus, a sonographic sign for Down syndrome? Obstet Gynecol. 1995, 86: 998-1001 .
.77Dildy GA, Judd VE, Clark SL. Prospective evaluation of the antenatal incidence
and postnatal significance of the fetal echogenic cardiac focus: a case-control study.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 175: 1008-12 .
.79Sepulveda W, Cullen S, Nicolaides P, Hollingsworth J, Fisk NM. Echogenic foci
in the fetal
heart: a marker of chromosomal abnormality. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995, 102: 490-2 .
.75Simpson JM, Cook A, Sharland G. The significance of echogenic foci in the fetal
heart: a prospective study of 228 cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 8: 225-8 .
.74Bromley B, Lieberman E, Shipp T, Richardson M, Benacerraf BR. Echogenic
intracardiac focus (EIF): association with aneuploidy in both high and low risk
patients. J Ultrasound Med 1998, 17: 127-131 .
.73Benacerraf BR, Mandell J, Estroff JA, Harlow BL, Frigoletto Jr FD. Fetal
pyelectasis, a possible association with Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 1990, 76:
58-60 .
.78Corteville JE, Dicke JM, Crane JP. Fetal pyelectasis and Down syndrome, is
genetic amniocentesis warranted? Obstet Gynecol 1992, 79: 770-2 .
.74Guariglia L, Rosati P. Isolated mild fetal pyelectasis detected by transvaginal
sonography in advanced maternal age. Obstet Gynecol 1998, 92: 833-6 .
.91Wickstrom E, Maizels M, Sabbagha RE, Tamura RK, Cohen LC, Pergament E.
Isolated fetal pyelectasis: assessment of risk for postnatal uropathy and Down
syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 8: 236-40 .
.91Wickstrom EA, Thangavelu M, Parilla BV, Tamura RK, Sabbagha RE. A
Prospective study of the association between isolated fetal pyelectasis and
chromosomal abnormality. Obstet Gynecol 1996, 88: 379-82 .
.92Nyberg DA, Resta RG, Mahony BS, Dubinsky T, Luthy DA, Hickok DE,
Luthardt FW. Fetal hyperechogenic bowel and Down's syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet
Gynecol 1993, 3: 330-3 .
.97Nyberg DA, Dubinsky T, Resta RG, Mahony BS, Hickok DE, Luthy DA.
Echogenic fetal
bowel during the second trimester: clinical importance. Radiology 1993, 188: 527-31 .
.99Bromley B, Doubilet P, Frigoletto Jr FD, Krauss C, Estroff JA, Benacerraf B R. Is
fetal hyperechoic bowel on second trimester sonogram an indication for
amniocentesis? Obstet Gynecol 1994, 83: 647-51 .
.95Scioscia AL, Pretorius DH, Budorick NE, Cahill TC, Axelrod FT, Leopold G R.
Second-trimester hyperechoic bowel and chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet
Gynecol, 1992, 167: 889-94 .
.94Sepulveda W, Leung KY, Robertson ME, Kay E, Mayall ES, Fisk NM.
Prevalence of cystic fibrosis mutations in pregnancies with fetal echogenic bowel.
Obstet Gynecol 1996, 87: 103-6
.93Hogge WA, Hogge JS, Boehm CD, Sanders RC. Increased echogenicity in the
fetal abdomen: use of DNA analysis to establish a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. J
Ultrasound Med 1993, 12: 451-4 .
.98Weiner Z. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection with oligohydramnios and
echogenic bowel at 14 weeks' gestation. J Ultrasound Med 1995, 14: 617-8 .
.94Hill LM, Fries J, Hecker J, Brzybek P. Second-trimester echogenic small bowel:
an increased risk for adverse perinatal outcome. Prenat Diagn 1994, 14: 845-50 .
.51Corteville JE, Gray DL, Crane JP. Congenital hydronephrosis: correlation of fetal
ultrasonographic findings with infant outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 3848.
.51Achiron R, Liptiz S, Gabbay U, Yagel S. Prenatal ultrasonographic diagnosis of
fetal heart echogenic foci: no correlation with Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 1997,
89 (6): 945-8 .
.52Guariglia L, Rosati P. Isolated mild fetal pyelectasis detected by transvaginal
sonography in advanced maternal age. Obstet Gynecol 1998, 92: 833-6 .
.57Bromley B, Lieberman E, Laboda LA, Benacerraf BR. Echogenic intracardiac
focus, a sonographic sign for Down syndrome? Obstet. Gynecol. 1995, 86: 998-1001 .
.59Dremsek PA, Grindl K, Voitl P, Strobl R, Hafner E, Geissler W, Hruby W, Sacher
M. Renal pyelectasis in fetuses and neonates: diagnostic value of renal pelvis
diameter in pre- and postnatal sonographic screening. AJR 1997, 168: 1017-1019 .
.55Vintzileos AM, Egan, JFX. Adjusting the risk for trisomy 21 on the basis of
second-trimester ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 172: 837-44 .
.54Vintzileos AM, Campbell WE, Guzman ER, Smulian JC, McLean DA, Ananth
CV. Second-trimester ultrasound markers for detection of trisomy 21: which markers
are best? Obstet Gynecol 1997, 89: 941-4 .
.53Vintzileos AM, Guzman ER, Smulian JC, McLean DA, Ananth CV. Choice of
second-trimester genetic sonogram for detection of trisomy 21. Obstet Gynecol 1997,
90: 187-90 .
.58Bromley B, Lieberman E, Benacerraf BR. The incorporation of maternal age into
the sonographic scoring index for the detection at 14 - 20 weeks of fetuses with
Down's syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997, 10: 321-324 .
.54Nicolaides K, Shawwa L, Brizot M, Snijders R. Ultrasonographically detectable
markers of fetal chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993, 3: 56-69 .
.41Cans C, Amblard F, Devillard F, Pison H, Jalbert P, Jouk PS. Population
screening for aneuploidy using maternal age and ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 1998, 18:
683-92 .
.41Nicolaides K, Shawwa L, Brizot M, Snijders R. Ultrasonographically detectable
markers of fetal chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993, 3: 56-69 .
.42Benacerraf BR. The second-trimester fetus with Down syndrome: detection using
sonographic features. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 7: 147-55 .
.47Balcar I, Grant DC, Miller WA, Bieber F. Antenatal detection of Down syndrome
by sonography. AJR 1984, 143: 29-30 .
.49Nyberg 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 .
.45Nyberg 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: 8-14 .
.44Nyberg DA, Luthy DA., Cheng EY, Sheley RC, Resta RG, Williams MA. Role of
prenatal ultrasonography in women with positive screen for Down syndrome on the
basis of maternal serum markers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173: 1030-5 .
.43Nadel A, Bromley B, Frigoletto Jr FD, Benacerraf BR. Can the presumed risk of
autosomal trisomy be decreased in fetuses of older women following a normal
sonogram? J Ultrasound Med 1995, 143: 297-302 .
.48Bahado-Singh RO, Tan A, Deren O, Hunter D, Copel J, Mahoney MJ. Risk of
Down syndrome and any clinically significant chromosome defect in pregnancies
with abnormal triple-screen and normal targeted ultrasonographic results. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1996, 17 .829-4 :5
.44Bahado-Singh RA, Deren O, Tan A, D'Ancona RL, Hunter D, Copel JA,
Mahoney MJ. Ultrasonographically adjusted midtrimester risk of trisomy 21 and
significant chromosomal defects in advanced maternal age. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1996, 175: 1563-8 .
.31Bahado-Singh RO, Goldstein I, Uerpairojkit B, Copel JA, Mahoney M J, and
Baumgarten A. Normal nuchal thickness in the midtrimester indicates reduced risk of
Down syndrome in pregnancies with abnormal triple-screen results. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 1995, 173 .1114-11 :
.31Druggan A. Johnson MP, Reichler A, et al. Second trimester minor ultrasound
anomalies: impact on the risk of aneuploidy associated with advanced maternal age.
Obstet Gynecol 1996, 88: 203-6 .
.32Nyberg DA, Luthy DA., Cheng EY, Sheley RC, Resta RG, Williams MA. Role of
prenatal ultrasonography in women with positive screen for Down syndrome on the
basis of maternal serum markers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173: 1030-5 .
.37Nyberg 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: 8-14 .
.39Vintzileos AM, Guzman ER, Smulian JC, McLean DA, Ananth CV. Choice of
second-trimester genetic sonogram for detection of trisomy 21. Obstet Gynecol 1997,
90: 187-90 .
.35Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Rodis JF, Guzman ER, Smulian JC, Knuppel RA.
The use of second trimester genetic sonogram in building clinical management of
patients at increased risk for fetal trisomy 21. Obstet Gynecol 1996, 87: 948-52 .
.34Bromley B, Lieberman E, Benacerraf BR. The incorporation of maternal age into
the sonographic scoring index for the detection at 14 - 20 weeks of fetuses with
Down's syndrome. Ultrasound Obtet Gynecol 1997, 10: 321-324 .
.33Yagel S, Anteby EY, Hochner-Celnikier D, Ariel I, Chaap T, Ben Neriah Z. The
role of midtrimester targeted fetal organ screening combined with the "triple test" and
maternal age in the diagnosis of trisomy 21: a retrospective study. Am J Obstet
Gynecol .91-9 :138 ,1448
.38Copel JA, Bahado-Singh RO. Prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome – a search
for the family’s values. N Engl J Med 1999, 341: 521-2 .
.34Phillips OP, Elias S, Shulman LP, Andersen RN, Morgan CD, Simpson JL.
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 .757-8 :81 ,1442
.81Snijders RJM, Holzgreve W, Cuckle H, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age-specific
risks for trisomies at 9 - 14 weeks' gestation. Prenat Diagn 1994, 14: 543-52.