Factors associated with poor outcome in fetuses prenatally diagnosed with sacrococcygeal teratoma.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Outcome of fetuses, prenatally diagnosed with sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT), is still poorly documented. This study assesses the incidence and prenatal predictors of outcome in all fetuses prenatally diagnosed with SCT. METHODS: This is a retrospective study on all fetuses prenatally diagnosed with SCT from 1998 to 2018 in the Netherlands. Poor outcome was defined as terminations of pregnancy (TOP) because of expected unfavorable outcome, intrauterine fetal death, or early neonatal death. Potential risk factors for poor outcome were analyzed. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-four fetuses were included. Sixteen (19.0%) TOPs were excluded from statistical analysis. Eleven of the remaining 68 fetuses had poor outcome. Overall mortality was 32.1%, with a mortality excluding TOPs of 13.1%. Thirteen fetal interventions were performed in 11 (13.1%) fetuses. Potential risk factors for poor outcome were the presence of fetal hydrops (OR: 21.0, CI: 2.6-275.1, p = 0.012) and cardiomegaly (OR: 10.3, CI: 1.9-55.8, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The overall mortality of fetuses prenatally diagnosed with SCTs including tTOP was 32.1%. This high mortality rate was mainly due to termination of pregnancy. Mortality excluding TOP was 13.1%. Potential risk factors for poor outcome were fetal hydrops and cardiomegaly.

Preventing preterm birth with progesterone: costs and effects of screening low risk women with a singleton pregnancy for short cervical length, the Triple P study.

BACKGROUND: Women with a short cervical length in mid-trimester pregnancy have a higher risk of preterm birth and therefore a higher rate of neonatal mortality and morbidity. Progesterone can potentially decrease the number of preterm births and lower neonatal mortality and morbidity. Previous studies showed good results of progesterone in women with either a history of preterm birth or a short cervix. However, it is unknown whether screening for a short cervix and subsequent treatment in mid trimester pregnancy is effective in low risk women. METHODS/DESIGN: We plan a combined screen and treat study among women with a singleton pregnancy without a previous preterm birth. In these women, we will measure cervical length at the standard anomaly scan performed between 18 and 22 weeks. Women with cervical length ≤ 30 mm at two independent measurements will be randomly allocated to receive either vaginal progesterone tablets or placebo between 22 and 34 weeks. The primary outcome of this trial is adverse neonatal condition, defined as a composite outcome of neonatal mortality and severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes are time to delivery, preterm birth rate before 32, 34 and 37 weeks, days of admission in neonatal intensive care unit, maternal morbidity, maternal admission days for preterm labour and costs. We will assess growth, physical condition and neurodevelopmental outcome of the children at two years of age. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence for the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of screening for short cervical length at the 18-22 weeks and subsequent progesterone treatment among low risk women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR207.

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the M.A.K.E. study.

BACKGROUND: In the past 30 years karyotyping was the gold standard for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aberrations in the fetus. Traditional karyotyping (TKT) has a high accuracy and reliability. However, it is labor intensive, the results take 14-21 days, the costs are high and unwanted findings such as abnormalities with unknown clinical relevance are not uncommon. These disadvantages challenged the practice of karyotyping. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is a new molecular genetic technique in prenatal diagnosis. Previous preclinical evidence suggests equivalence of MLPA and traditional karyotyping (TKT) regarding test performance. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre diagnostic substitute study among pregnant women, who choose to have amniocentesis for the indication advanced maternal age and/or increased risk following prenatal screening test. In all subjects, both MLPA and karyotyping will be performed on the amniotic fluid sample. The primary outcome is diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes will be maternal quality of life, women's preferences and costs. Analysis will be intention to treat and per protocol analysis. Quality of life analysis will be carried out within the study population. The study aims to include 4500 women. DISCUSSION: The study results are expected to help decide whether MLPA can replace traditional karyotyping for 'low-risk' pregnancies in terms of diagnostic accuracy, quality of life and women's preferences. This will be the first clinical study to report on all relevant aspects of the potential replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered in the clinical trial register number ISRCTN47252164.

A comparison of the impact of screen-positive results obtained from ultrasound and biochemical screening for Down syndrome in the first trimester: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the experiences of women who received a screen-positive test result for Down syndrome after nuchal translucency screening or after biochemical screening in the first trimester of pregnancy in the Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-quantitative questionnaires were sent to 40 women with a screen-positive test result for Down syndrome in the first trimester of pregnancy: 20 had undergone nuchal translucency screening (NT group) and 20 had undergone serum screening (PAPP-A and free beta-hCG) (SS group). In all the cases, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) had not revealed any chromosomal abnormalities. RESULTS: The major reason for undergoing the screening test in both groups of women was to be more reassured about the health of the baby. In the NT group, 5 out of the 20 women stated that they had suddenly been confronted with the NT measurement during the ultrasound examination without even being asked, or had been caught by surprise about the possibility. Together with two other women, they felt that at that stage they had been insufficiently informed about what the test meant. In the SS group, two women also held this opinion. In 10 out of the 20 women in the SS group, the positive-screening result had caused (a great deal of) anxiety. In the NT group, this proportion was as high as 18 out of the 20. Six of the women in the NT group mentioned that 'seeing the baby' had been an important factor in their decision to undergo CVS. Even after a favourable result of CVS, a proportion of the pregnant women were still feeling anxious about the health of their baby (5 women in the SS group and 12 in the NT group). Nevertheless, a large proportion of the women in both groups was pleased that they had undergone the screening test. Only a few of them stated that they would not choose the same screening test again in a future pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: An unfavourable screening result after NT screening appeared to have a greater impact than an unfavourable result after serum screening. This might partly be explained by the ultrasound examination visualising the increased risk during NT screening. An additional important role may have been played by the fact that an abnormal NT screening result implies an increased risk of other disorders besides Down syndrome, which the women should be informed about beforehand. Several factors place special demands on the counselling prior to NT screening.