The American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists

WOMENS HEALTH CARE PHYSICIANS

P RACTICE BULLET IN
clinical management guidelines for obstetrician gynecologists

Number 163, May 2016

(Replaces Practice Bulletin Number 77, January 2007)

(See also Practice Bulletin Number 162, Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders)

Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

Prenatal genetic screening is designed to assess whether a patient is at increased risk of having a fetus affected by a
genetic disorder. In contrast, prenatal genetic diagnostic testing is intended to determine, with as much certainty as
possible, whether a specific genetic disorder or condition is present in the fetus. The purpose of prenatal screening
for aneuploidy is to provide an assessment of the womans risk of carrying a fetus with one of the more common fetal
aneuploidies. This is in contrast to prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders, in which the fetal chromosomes are
evaluated for the presence or absence of abnormalities in chromosome number, deletions, and duplications, or the fetal
DNA is evaluated for specific genetic disorders. The wide variety of screening test options, each offering varying levels
of information and accuracy, has resulted in the need for complex counseling by the health care provider and complex
decision making by the patient. No one screening test is superior to other screening tests in all test characteristics. Each
test has relative advantages and disadvantages. It is important that obstetriciangynecologists and other obstetric care
providers be prepared to discuss not only the risk of aneuploidy but also the benefits, risks, and limitations of available
screening tests. Screening for aneuploidy should be an informed patient choice, with an underlying foundation of shared
decision making that fits the patients clinical circumstances, values, interests, and goals.
The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to provide current information regarding the available screening test options
for fetal aneuploidy and to review their benefits, accuracy, and limitations. For information regarding prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders, refer to Practice Bulletin No. 162, Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders.

Background
Aneuploidy is defined as having one or more extra or
missing chromosomes, leading to an unbalanced chromosome number in a cell. Because each chromosome
consists of hundreds of genes, the loss or gain of large
chromosomal segments disrupts significant amounts of
genetic material and often results in a nonviable pregnancy or offspring that may not survive after birth. In the
case of a surviving newborn, congenital birth defects;
failure to thrive; and functional abnormalities, including mild-to-severe intellectual disability, infertility, and
shortened lifespan, may occur.

Although chromosomal abnormalities occur in

approximately 1 in 150 live births (1), the prevalence is
greater earlier in gestation because aneuploidy accounts
for a large proportion of early pregnancy loss. The incidence of fetal aneuploidy increases as a woman ages
(Table 1) but can affect any woman regardless of age
and is not related to race or ethnicity. Other factors that
increase the risk of fetal aneuploidy include a history of a
prior aneuploid fetus and the presence of fetal anomalies.
Autosomal trisomies are the most common aneuploidies that are not related to sex chromosome disorders.
Down syndrome (trisomy 21) is the most common of
these, with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 800 live

Committee on Practice BulletinsObstetrics, Committee on Genetics, and Society for MaternalFetal Medicine. This Practice Bulletin was developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice BulletinsObstetrics, Committee on Genetics, and the Society
for MaternalFetal Medicine in collaboration with Nancy C. Rose, MD and Brian M. Mercer, MD.
The information is designed to aid practitioners in making decisions about appropriate obstetric and gynecologic care. These guidelines should not be
construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure. Variations in practice may be warranted based on the needs of the individual patient,
resources, and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice.

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY e123

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

births (1). The most common sex chromosome aneuploidy is Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY) with a prevalence of 1 in 500 males. The only viable monosomy is
Turner syndrome (45,X).
Down syndrome is the most common form of inherited intellectual disability, with approximately 6,000
affected infants born in the United States each year. It
is estimated that 95% of cases of Down syndrome result
from nondisjunction involving chromosome 21. The
remaining cases result from translocations or somatic
mosaicism (2). Although the clinical presentation of
Down syndrome can vary, it is associated with characteristic facial features, learning disabilities, congenital
heart defects (eg, atrioventricular canal defects), intestinal atresia, seizures, childhood leukemia, and earlyonset Alzheimer disease. Fetuses affected with Down
syndrome often do not survive pregnancy; between
the first trimester and full term, an estimated 43% of
pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth (3). In economically developed countries, the median survival of
individuals with Down syndrome is now almost 60 years
(4). Factors associated with an increased risk of Down
syndrome include higher maternal age, a parental translocation involving chromosome 21, a previous child with
a trisomy, significant ultrasonographic findings, and a
positive screening test result. After a prenatal diagnosis
is made, prenatal assessment cannot predict the severity
of the complications from Down syndrome.
In general, the process of aneuploidy screening identifies two groups of individuals: 1) those with a positive
screening test result who have an increased risk of having
a fetus with an aneuploidy and 2) those with a negative
screening test result who have a lower posttest probability of the evaluated aneuploidies. Women with a positive screening test result should be counseled regarding
their higher risk of aneuploidy and offered the option of
diagnostic testing. Those who have a negative test result
should be counseled regarding their lower adjusted risk
and their lower residual risk. Women who have a negative screening test result should not be offered additional
screening tests for aneuploidy because this will increase
their potential for a false-positive test result. Even if a
woman has a negative test result, she may choose diagnostic testing later in pregnancy, particularly if additional
findings become evident (eg, fetal anomalies or markers
of aneuploidy identified on follow-up ultrasonography).
Aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing should be
discussed and offered to all women early in pregnancy,
ideally at the first prenatal visit. The choice of whether
to perform screening or diagnostic testing for aneuploidy
depends on the womans goals and values and her desire
for informational accuracy. Although maternal age may

e124 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

Table 1. Risk of Chromosomal Abnormalities Based on

Maternal Age at Term ^

Age at Term

Risk of Trisomy 21*

Risk of Any
Chromosome
Abnormality

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

1:1,578
1:1,572
1:1,565
1:1,556
1:1,544
1:1,480
1:1,460
1:1,440
1:1,420
1:1,380
1:1,340
1:1,290
1:1,220
1:1,140
1:1,050
1:940
1:820
1:700
1:570
1:456
1:353
1:267
1:199
1:148
1:111
1:85
1:67
1:54
1:45
1:39
1:35
1:31
1:29
1:27
1:26
1:25

1:454
1:475
1:499
1:525
1:555
1:525
1:525
1:499
1:499
1:475
1:475
1:475
1:454
1:434
1:416
1:384
1:384
1:322
1:285
1:243
1:178
1:148
1:122
1:104
1:80
1:62
1:48
1:38
1:30
1:23
1:18
1:14
1:10
1:8
1:6

*Morris JK, Wald NJ, Mutton DE, Alberman E. Comparison of models of

maternal age-specific risk for Down syndrome live births. Prenat Diagn
2003;23:2528.
Risk of any chromosomal abnormality includes the risk of trisomy 21 and
trisomy 18 in addition to trisomy 13, 47,XXY, 47,XYY, Turner syndrome
genotype, and other clinically significant abnormalities, 47,XXX not included.
Data from Hook EB. Rates of chromosome abnormalities at different maternal
ages. Obstet Gynecol 1981;58:2825.

Cuckle HS, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. Estimating a womans risk of having a
pregnancy associated with Downs syndrome using her age and serum alphafetoprotein level. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:387402.

Data not available.

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

be helpful in adjusting an individual womans risk of

having a fetus with aneuploidy, it should not be used
as the sole determinant of whether aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing is offered. Although the risk
of aneuploidy increases with advancing maternal age,
most children with Down syndrome are born to younger
women because a larger proportion of all children are
born to young women. An observational study of more
than 38,000 women demonstrated that if all women
aged 35 years and older had had diagnostic testing, the
detection rate for Down syndrome would have been only
21.6% (5).
Screening tests for aneuploidy are now available for
pregnant women in all trimesters of pregnancy. Among
these are first-trimester, triple, quad, and penta screens;
cell-free DNA; and ultrasonographic screening as single
screening tests. Screening tests that are performed in the
first and second trimesters include integrated, sequential,
and contingent screening.
The intent of counseling for aneuploidy is to inform
the pregnant woman about chromosomal disorders,
provide information regarding her specific risk of carrying a fetus with aneuploidy, and review the available options so that she can make an informed choice
regarding screening or diagnostic testing. After review
and discussion, every patient has the right to pursue or
decline screening or diagnostic testing. Pretest and posttest counseling are essential and must be a part of any
screening program. When a positive or negative screening test result is obtained, the patient should be counseled
regarding the adjusted likelihood of carrying a fetus with
the evaluated aneuploidies. The potential for the fetus to
be affected by genetic disorders that are not evaluated
by the screening or diagnostic test should be reviewed.
In the event that a prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy
is made, the patient must be counseled appropriately so
that she can make informed decisions regarding pregnancy management. Counseling should include family
education and preparedness as well as options regarding
adoption, pregnancy termination, referral to a tertiary
care center for delivery of the newborn if needed, and
perinatal hospice care as appropriate for a child with a
condition that is incompatible with life. Patients found
to have a fetus with a chromosomal abnormality often
benefit from referral to a genetics professional for further
detailed counseling.

Single Screening Tests

First-Trimester Screening
Typically performed when the crownrump length measures between 3845 mm and 84 mm (generally between

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

10 0/7 weeks and 13 6/7 weeks of gestation), firsttrimester screening includes a nuchal translucency measurement, serum free -hCG, or total human chorionic
gonadotropin (hCG) along with pregnancy-associated
plasma protein A analyte levels. A specific risk estimate
for aneuploidy is calculated using these results as well
as maternal factors such as maternal age, prior history of
aneuploidy, weight, race, and number of fetuses.
The nuchal translucency refers to the fluid-filled
space measured on the dorsal aspect of the fetal neck.
An enlarged nuchal translucency (often defined as
3.0 mm or more or above the 99th percentile for the
crownrump length) is independently associated with
fetal aneuploidy and structural malformations (6). The
risk of adverse pregnancy outcome is proportional to the
degree of nuchal translucency enlargement. Meticulous
technique in nuchal translucency imaging is essential for
accurate risk assessment because undermeasurement by
even 0.5 mm can reduce the test sensitivity by 18% (7).
Independent credentialing of ultrasonographers in appropriate technique is important to screening performance.

Quadruple Screen
The quadruple marker screen (quad screen) can
be performed from approximately 15 0/7 weeks to
22 6/7 weeks of gestation; the range is dependent on the
laboratory that the obstetriciangynecologist or other
obstetric care provider uses. This test does not require
specialized ultrasonography for nuchal translucency
measurement and gives information regarding the risk
of open fetal defects in addition to aneuploidy risk
assessment. The best time to perform a quad screen is
from approximately 16 weeks to 18 weeks of gestation
because this optimizes screening for neural tube defects.
The quad screen involves the measurement of four
maternal serum analytes: 1) hCG, 2) alpha fetoprotein
(AFP), 3) dimeric inhibin A, and 4) unconjugated estriol,
in combination with maternal factors such as age, weight,
race, the presence of diabetes, and plurality to calculate
a risk estimate. First-trimester and quad screening have
similar detection rates for Down syndrome: more than
80% at a 5% positive result rate (Table 2) (5). Accurate
gestational dating at the time of blood sampling is important because inaccurate gestational dating decreases the
accuracy of the result. The later timing of this test leaves
fewer options available for the patient if the results are
positive.

Penta Screen
The penta screen includes hyperglycosylated hCG (also
known as invasive trophoblast antigen) in addition
to the quad screen markers and also is available for

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e125

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Table 2. Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of Common Screening Tests for Aneuploidy ^
Screening Test

Detection Screen Positive

Approximate
Gestational Age Rate for Down Rate* (%)
Range for
Syndrome (%)
Screening (Weeks)

First trimester

1013 6/7

8287

Triple screen

1522

69

Quad screen

1522

81

Integrated

1013 6/7 , then

1522

96

Sequential :
Stepwise

1013 6/7 , then

1522

95

8894

Contingent
screening

Serum
Integrated
Cell-free DNA||

Nuchal
translucency

1013 6/7 , then

88
1522
10 to term
99 (in patients
who receive a
result)

1013 6/7

6470

Advantages

1. Early screening
2. Single test
3. Analyte assessment of
other adverse outcome
1. Single test
2. No specialized US required
3. Also screens for open fetal defects
4. Analyte assessment for
other adverse outcomes
1. Single test
2. No specialized US required
3. Also screens for open fetal defects
4. Analyte assessment for
other adverse outcomes
Highest DR of combined tests
Also screens for open fetal defects

Disadvantages

Lower DR than
combined tests
NT required

1. Highest DR for Down syndrome

2. Can be performed at any
gestational age after 10 weeks
3. Low false-positive rate in high-risk
women (or women at high risk of
Down syndrome)

Allows individual fetus assessment in

multifetal gestations
Provides additional screening
for fetal anomalies and possibly for
twintwin transfusion syndrome

NT+PAPP-A and
hCG

Lower DR than with hCG, AFP, uE3

first-trimester or quad
screening
Lowest accuracy of the
single lab tests
Lower DR than
combined tests

hCG, AFP, uE3,

DIA

Two samples needed

before results are
known
Two samples needed

NT+PAPP-A,
then quad
screen
NT+hCG+
PAPP-A, then
quad screen

First-trimester results provided;

Comparable performance to integrated, but FTS results provided; also
screens for open fetal defects; analyte
assessment for other adverse outcomes.
Possibly two samples
First-trimester test result:
needed
Positive: diagnostic test offered
Negative: no further testing
Intermediate: second-trimester test
offered
Final: risk assessment incorporates firstand second-trimester results
1. DR compares favorably with other tests. Two samples needed;
no first-trimester results
2. No need for NT

0.5

Method

NT+hCG+
PAPP-A, then
quad screen

PAPP-A+quad
screen

1. NPV and PPV not Three roughly

equivalent
clearly reported
2. Higher false-positive molecular
rate in women at low methods
risk of Down syndrome
3. Limited information
about three trisomies
and fetal sex
4. Results do not
always represent a fetal
DNA result
1. Poor screen in
US only
isolation
2. Ultrasound
certification necessary

Abbreviations: AFP, alpha fetoprotein; DIA, dimeric inhibin-A; DR, detection rate; FTS, first-trimester screening; hCG, human chorionic gonadotropin; NPV, negative predictive value; NT, nuchal
translucency; PAPP-A, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A; PPV, positive predictive value; uE3, unconjugated estriol; US, ultrasonography.
*A screen positive test result includes all positive test results: the true positives and false positives.

First-trimester combined screening: 87%, 85%, and 82% for measurements performed at 11 weeks, 12 weeks, and 13 weeks, respectively; Malone FD, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH,
Saade GR, Berkowitz RL, et al. First-trimester septated cystic hygroma: prevalence, natural history, and pediatric outcome. FASTER Trial Research Consortium. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:28894.

Because of variations in growth and conception timing, some fetuses at the lower and upper gestational age limits may fall outside the required crownrump length range. Also, different laboratories use slightly different gestational age windows for their testing protocol.

Cuckle H, Benn P, Wright D. Down syndrome screening in the first and/or second trimester: model predicted performance using meta-analysis parameters. Semin Perinatol 2005;29:2527.
||
Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. MatErnal BLood IS Source to Accurately
diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group [published erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:957]. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:890901 and Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, LambertMesserlian GM, Haddow JE, Neveux LM, Ehrich M, et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med 2011;13:91320.

e126 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

second-trimester screening (8) by at least one national

laboratory. Although there is some evidence from one
limited retrospective trial that this test may improve
second-trimester screening performance, its performance
has not been evaluated rigorously in prospective studies and it is not widely used. Limited data are available
to compare the accuracy of the penta screen with other
second-trimester screening tests.

Triple Screen
The triple marker screen measures serum hCG, AFP, and
unconjugated estriol to determine a risk estimate. This
test provides a lower sensitivity for the detection of Down
syndrome (sensitivity of 69% at a 5% positive screening test result rate) than quad screen and first-trimester
screening (5).

Combined First- and Second-Trimester

Screening
Combined first- and second-trimester screening with
either integrated, sequential, or contingent screening
protocol provides a higher detection rate than one-step
screening. Depending on the test selected, results are not
available until the second trimester or possibly in the first
trimester under certain circumstances.

Integrated Screening and Serum Integrated

Screening
With integrated screening, the patient undergoes a firsttrimester nuchal translucency measurement and analyte
screening followed by a second-trimester quad screen
and receives a single test result in the second trimester.
In locations where a nuchal translucency measurement
by a certified ultrasonographer is unavailable, or if fetal
position, maternal body habitus, or imaging properties
preclude an accurate nuchal translucency measurement,
serum integrated screening can be offered. Serum integrated screening has a similar but slightly lower detection rate than integrated screening (Table 2). Limitations
of integrated screening include the withholding of firsttrimester screening test results until the second trimester
and nonadherence of the second blood draw; rates of
nonadherence in practice have been reported to be as
high as 25% without a written reminder to complete the
test (9).

Sequential Screening: the Stepwise and

Contingent Screening Models
Sequential screening was developed to maintain a high
detection rate using the combined first- and secondtrimester screening approach while also reporting the

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

patients first-trimester screening test risk, which allows

for earlier management options. Using stepwise sequential screening, the patient is given a preliminary risk
estimate after completion of the first-trimester analytes
and nuchal translucency screening. If the first-trimester
screening result indicates that the risk of aneuploidy is
greater than the laboratory-derived positive screening
cutoff, the patient is notified and offered a diagnostic test
or cell-free DNA screening, and the screening protocol is
discontinued. If the patient has a lower risk than the cutoff level, she is informed that she has received a negative
screening test result and proceeds to quad screening in
the second trimester. Sequential screening has a detection
rate of 9193% with a positive screening test result rate
of 45% (10, 11).
The contingent model classifies aneuploidy risk
as high, intermediate, or low on the basis of the firsttrimester screening test results; women at high risk are
offered cell-free DNA screening or diagnostic testing
with chorionic villus sampling (CVS), and for those at
low risk, no further screening or testing is recommended.
Only those women at intermediate risk are offered
second-trimester screening and, thus, fewer women go
on to second-trimester screening.
In the stepwise and contingent models, the patients
at highest risk identified by first-trimester screening are offered an early diagnostic procedure. Firstand second-trimester results are used together to
calculate a final risk of aneuploidy in patients at lower
risk in the stepwise and sequential models. The sequential
approach takes advantage of the higher detection rate
achieved by incorporating the first- and second-trimester
screening test results with only a marginal increase in the
false-positive rate. Theoretically, the contingent approach
should maintain high detection rates with low falsepositive rates while reducing the number of secondtrimester tests performed.
The use of multiple screening tests performed independently (eg, a first-trimester screening test followed by
a quad screen as an unlinked test) is not recommended
because it will result in an unacceptably high positive
screening rate and could deliver confusing risk estimates to patients. In patients who undergo first-trimester
screening, if later screening for risk of neural tube defects
is to be done with maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein
(MSAFP), the test should be performed as an isolated
screening test and not as part of a quad screen.

Ultrasonographic Screening
Although fetuses with trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome,
which occurs in 1 in 10,000 births) or trisomy 18
(Edwards syndrome, which occurs in 1 in 6,000 births)

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e127

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

usually have major structural anomalies that are evident

on ultrasonography, the ultrasonographic identification
of Down syndrome is more elusive. For several decades,
the second-trimester genetic ultrasonogram has been
used to screen for Down syndrome using specific
ultrasonographic findings (12). This approach seeks
to identify major structural abnormalities and minor
ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy. The
major structural anomalies associated with fetal Down
syndrome include cardiac anomalies (such as septal
defects, tetralogy of Fallot, and atrioventricular canal
defects) usually identified in the second trimester and
duodenal atresia, which typically is identified in the third
trimester. In contrast, second- and third-trimester soft
ultrasonographic markers for aneuploidy are nonspecific
physical characteristics that are more common among
fetuses with Down syndrome and in some cases also
can reflect or progress to an overt fetal abnormality (eg,
thickened nuchal fold, renal pelvis dilation, or echogenic
bowel). Because soft markers for aneuploidy also are
common in unaffected fetuses, it is difficult to use these
findings to distinguish between pregnancies affected or
unaffected by aneuploidy. As an isolated finding, an
increased nuchal skinfold thickness confers the highest
risk of aneuploidy. In contrast, an isolated echogenic
intracardiac focus carries one of the lowest risks of fetal
aneuploidy (13, 14). If an isolated low-risk marker such
as a choroid plexus cyst or intracardiac echogenic focus
is identified on the fetal anatomic ultrasound survey,
the patients chart should be reviewed to determine if
analyte screening has been performed previously; if not,
it should be offered. Additional follow-up for isolated
ultrasonographic markers generally is not indicated other
than for isolated renal pelvis dilation, echogenic bowel,
or shortened humerus or femur length (15). Patients with
these markers may benefit from referral for detailed
ultrasonography and follow-up. Major limitations of the
use of second-trimester ultrasonographic markers include
the lack of standardization in measurements and characteristics that define a positive test result, and the lack of
understanding of how factors such as high maternal body
mass index, multiple gestation, machine quality, and
experience of the ultrasonographer and ultrasonologist
affect screening performance.

Cell-free DNA Screening

Cell-free DNA screening evaluates short segments of DNA
in maternal blood and can be used to screen for a variety
of fetal conditions. The fetal component of cell-free DNA
is released into the maternal circulation primarily from
placental cells undergoing apoptosis or programmed cell
death and comprises approximately 313% of the total cell-

e128 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

free DNA in maternal blood (16). This amount increases

throughout gestation and is cleared from the maternal
circulation within hours after childbirth (17). Several
molecular methods have been developed to analyze cellfree DNA for the purpose of aneuploidy screening, and all
appear to have similar detection and false-positive rates,
although direct comparison trials have not been performed.
Cell-free DNA screening also can be used to determine
fetal sex, to identify the presence of a Rh-positive fetus
in a Rh-negative mother, and to detect some paternally
derived autosomal dominant genetic abnormalities (18
20). Screening can be performed from as early as 10 weeks
of gestation until term and offers the highest reported
detection rate for Down syndrome: more than 98% detection with positive screening rates of less than 0.5% among
women with a reportable result (21). The detection rate
is lower for trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 (2228). Further,
published studies have excluded those who have no reportable result, and these women are at increased risk of fetal
aneuploidy (23, 24, 29). Inclusion of these women in the
calculations would yield lower sensitivity for fetal aneuploidy. In addition, managing women with no reportable
result as screen positive will decrease the specificity and
increase the positive screening rate for this testing.

Clinical Considerations
and Recommendations
Who should be offered screening for
aneuploidy?
All women should be offered the option of aneuploidy
screening or diagnostic testing for fetal genetic disorders,
regardless of maternal age. The choice of screening test is
affected by many factors, including a desire for information before delivery, prior obstetric history, family history,
and the number of fetuses. Other factors to be considered
include gestational age at presentation, the availability of
a reliable nuchal translucency measurement, screening
test sensitivity and limitations, the cost of screening, the
constraints of long-term care of an affected child, and
options for pregnancy care or termination for an abnormal diagnostic test result. No one test is superior for all
test characteristics and not every test is available at all
centers. Each test has advantages and disadvantages that
should be discussed with each patient, with the appropriate test offered based on her concerns, needs, and
values. Obstetriciangynecologists and other obstetric care
providers should become familiar with the available
screening and diagnostic testing options for their patients
within their practice and adopt a standard approach
for counseling. Regardless of which screening tests are

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

offered, information about the detection (sensitivity) and

positive screening and false-positive rates, advantages,
disadvantages, and limitations should be communicated
to the patient. At the time of counseling regarding aneuploidy screening, the benefits and risks of diagnostic
testing (amniocentesis and CVS) also should be discussed
(30). After counseling, patients may decline screening or
diagnostic testing for any reason.

What is the role of ultrasonography in

screening for fetal aneuploidy?
In women of advanced maternal age, the absence of
ultrasonographic markers has been used to decrease a
womans age-related risk of aneuploidy by greater than
80% (31, 32). However, with the exception of maternal age,
second-trimester ultrasonography is the least effective
primary screening test for Down syndrome, detecting only
5060% of affected fetuses. As such, ultrasonography
should not be used in isolation to diagnose or exclude Down
syndrome. Ultrasonographic markers can identify other
disorders, and the various soft markers have different
degrees of association with Down syndrome. The risk
of aneuploidy associated with each marker should be
considered individually within the complete clinical context. The presence of soft ultrasonographic markers for
aneuploidy warrants targeted ultrasonography to exclude
other evident abnormalities and a review or offering of
screening tests for fetal aneuploidy. Of the soft markers,
third-trimester follow-up is only indicated for isolated
renal pelvis dilation, echogenic bowel, or shortened humerus
or femur (15). For women who have already undergone
screening for aneuploidy and have received a negative
screening test result, and for those who have had normal
diagnostic testing, ultrasonography should not be used as
an additional screening test for aneuploidy. If aneuploidy
screening has been performed before ultrasonographic
evaluation, no additional evaluation is indicated if an echogenic intracardiac feature or choroid plexus cysts is the
sole identified marker (Table 3). However, further detailed
counseling is recommended for fetuses with a hypoplastic
or absent nasal bone, echogenic bowel, or nuchal skinfold
thickening (15). If an isolated ultrasonographic marker for
aneuploidy is detected, the patient should be offered aneuploidy screening if it was not offered previously.
With regard to first-trimester imaging, an increased
nuchal translucency measurement increases the risk of
genetic syndromes and isolated anomalies, such as congenital heart defects, abdominal wall defects, and diaphragmatic hernia, even with normal chromosomes on
diagnostic testing (33). These patients should be offered
a targeted ultrasound examination and fetal echocardiography in the second trimester.

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

The finding of an increased nuchal translucency

extending along the length of the fetus in which septations are clearly visible is referred to as a cystic hygroma.
This finding is associated with a 50% likelihood of fetal
aneuploidy (most commonly Down syndrome, 45,X, and
trisomy 18). Of the remaining euploid fetuses, one half will
have a major structural malformation, such as congenital
heart defects, diaphragmatic hernia, or skeletal dysplasia, or
other genetic syndromes. Less than 20% of such pregnancies will result in a healthy live-born infant at term (34). A
nuchal measurement for aneuploidy risk is not necessary
at the time of cell-free DNA screening in the first trimester. However, ultrasound examination is useful to confirm
viability, to confirm the number of fetuses and the presence
of an empty gestational sac, to assign gestational age, and
to identify some major fetal anomalies for patients who
choose to have cell-free DNA screening (35). Patients who
choose serum integrated screening may be offered firsttrimester ultrasonography for gestational dating even if
nuchal translucency measurement is unavailable or cannot
be obtained. If an enlarged nuchal translucency, an obvious
anomaly, or a cystic hygroma is identified on ultrasonography, the patient should be offered genetic counseling
and diagnostic testing for aneuploidy as well as follow-up
ultrasonography for fetal structural abnormalities. Given
the high risk of congenital heart disease in these fetuses,
referral for fetal cardiac ultrasonography should be considered. Patients with an enlarged nuchal translucency
or cystic hygroma and normal fetal karyotype should be
offered an anatomic evaluation in the second trimester, fetal
cardiac ultrasonography, and further counseling regarding
the potential for genetic syndromes not detected by aneuploidy screening.

What are the characteristics and limitations

of the different screening tests?

First-Trimester Screening
The first-trimester screening, or first-trimester combined
screening, comprising nuchal translucency measurement
and serum analyte measurements combined into a single
test, generally is performed before 14 0/7 weeks of
gestation (with the range determined by the laboratory
accepting the sample, typically between 10 0/7 weeks and
13 6/7 weeks of gestation) and requires a crownrump
length between approximately 3845 mm and 84 mm.
Advantages of first-trimester screening are a slightly
higher, but not significantly different, detection rate for
Down syndrome compared with second-trimester screening. This test gives the potential for earlier diagnoses as
well as the ability to screen for other fetal or placental
disorders. However, first-trimester screening lacks the

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e129

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Table 3. Management of Ultrasonographic Markers for Aneuploidy ^

Soft Marker

Imaging Criteria

Aneuploidy Association
Aneuploidy risk increases with size of NT
Also associated with Noonan syndrome,
multiple pterygium syndrome, skeletal
dysplasias, congenital heart disease, and
other anomalies

Management
1. Genetic counseling
2. Offer cfDNA or CVS
3. Second-trimester detailed anatomic survey
and fetal cardiac ultrasonography

First trimester:
enlarged nuchal
translucency

Certified ultrasonography
measurement 3.0 mm or
above the 99th percentile
for the CRL

First trimester:
cystic hygroma

Large single or multilocular If septate, approximately 50% are aneuploid 1. Genetic counseling
fluid-filled cavities, in the
2. Offer CVS
nuchal region and can
3. Second-trimester detailed fetal anatomic
extend the length of the fetus
survey and fetal cardiac ultrasonography

Echogenic tissue in one or

Second trimester:
echogenic intracardiac both ventricles of the heart
foci
seen on standard fourchamber view

LR 1.41.8 for Down syndrome

Seen in 1530% of Down syndrome and
47% euploid fetuses

1. If isolated finding, aneuploidy screening

should be offered if not done previously
2. If aneuploidy screen result is negative, no
further evaluation is required.

Second trimester:
pyelectasis

LR 1.51.6 for Down syndrome

Renal pelvis measuring
4 mm in anteroposterior
diameter up to 20 weeks of
gestation

1. If isolated finding, aneuploidy screening

should be offered if not performed previously
2. Repeat ultrasonography in third trimester
for potential urinary tract obstruction

Second trimester:
echogenic bowel

Fetal small bowel as

echogenic as bone

LR 5.56.7 for Down syndrome

Associated with aneuploidy, intra-amniotic
bleeding, cystic fibrosis, CMV

1. Further counseling
2. Offer CMV, CF, and aneuploidy screening
or diagnostic testing

Second trimester:
thickened nuchal fold

6 mm from outer edge of

the occipital bone to outer
skin in the midline

LR 1118.6 with 4050% sensitivity and

>99% specificity for Down syndrome
Most powerful second-trimester marker

1. Detailed anatomic survey

2. Further detailed genetic counseling and
aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing

Second trimester: mild Lateral ventricular atrial

ventriculomegaly
measurement between
1015 mm

Associated with aneuploidy

LR 25 for Down syndrome

1. Genetic counseling
2. Second-trimester detailed anatomic
ultrasound evaluation
3. Consider diagnostic testing for aneuploidy
and CMV
4. Repeat ultrasound in third trimester

Second trimester:
choroid plexus cysts

In isolation, no aneuploidy association

1. Second-trimester detailed anatomic survey

and fetal cardiac ultrasound
2. No further follow-up if isolated
3. Consider aneuploidy screening or
diagnostic testing if other markers are present

LR 1.22.2 for Down syndrome. Can be

associated with aneuploidy, IUGR, short
limb dysplasia

1. Second-trimester detailed fetal anatomic

evaluation for short limb dysplasia
2. Further detailed counseling
3. Consider repeat ultrasonography in third
trimester for fetal growth

Discrete cyst(s) in one or

both choroid plexus(es)

Second trimester: short Measurement <2.5

percentile for gestational
femur length
age

Abbreviations: CF, cystic fibrosis; cfDNA, cell-free DNA; CMV, cytomegalovirus; CRL, crownrump length; CVS, chorionic villus sampling; IUGR, intrauterine growth
restriction; LR, likelihood ratio; NT, nuchal translucency.
Data from Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging workshop. Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited
Participants. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:107082; Malone FD, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Saade GR, Berkowitz RL, et al. First-trimester septated cystic hygroma:
prevalence, natural history, and pediatric outcome. FASTER Trial Research Consortium. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:28894; Aagaard-Tillery KM, Malone FD, Nyberg
DA, Porter TF, Cuckle HS, Fuchs K, et al. Role of second-trimester genetic sonography after Down syndrome screening. First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk
Research Consortium. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:118996; and Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, Mansur C, Marks K. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for
chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 1992;304:8679.

e130 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

ability to assess the risk of open fetal defects and relies on

the availability of a certified ultrasonographer. Women
who undergo first-trimester screening should be offered
second-trimester assessment for open fetal defects (by
ultrasonography, MSAFP screening, or both) and ultrasound screening for other fetal structural defects.

Second-Trimester Serum Screening Tests

Second-trimester serum screening, which typically is
performed between approximately 15 0/7 weeks and
22 6/7 weeks of gestation, provides an adjusted risk
assessment for Down syndrome, trisomy 18, and open
fetal defects. The detection rate with quad screening
is similar to first-trimester screening: more than 80%
detection at a 5% positive screening test result rate for
Down syndrome. Some laboratories offer additional
screening for rare disorders such as SmithLemliOpitz
syndrome and placental sulfatase deficiency if indicated
by an extremely low unconjugated estriol value. Also
performed in the second trimester, the triple screen is
less sensitive for Down syndrome (sensitivity of 69%
at a 5% positive screening test result rate). The penta
screen has no prospective validation trials to determine
its efficacy; using modeling, it appears to perform well
with the inclusion of invasive trophoblast antigen as an
additional screening marker (8). None of these screening
tests require specialized ultrasonographic measurements,
although accurate gestational dating improves risk accuracy determinations.

Integrated Screening
Integrated screening combines first-trimester nuchal
translucency and serum analyte screening with secondtrimester quad screening to give one result for aneuploidy risk, with a detection rate for Down syndrome
of approximately 96% at a 5% positive screening test
result rate (Table 2). In addition to having a high sensitivity for Down syndrome, integrated screening provides
information that is not available from nuchal translucency assessment regarding fetal abnormalities as well
as a risk assessment for open fetal defects. However,
integrated screening is complex, requiring first-trimester
ultrasound assessment and two different blood tests, and
the final result is not available until the second trimester.

Sequential Screening: Stepwise and

Contingent Screening
Like integrated screening, both forms of sequential
screening have the option of first- and second-trimester
testing for a combined final test result. However, the firsttrimester screening result is provided to the patient when
it is available and, if the patient is found to be at high risk

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

of aneuploidy after the first test, the patient can consider

further evaluation with either cell-free DNA screening
or with diagnostic testing. This allows the patient to
receive an abnormal result in the first trimester when more
diagnostic and management options are available.

What are the limitations of cell-free DNA

screening?
Because cell-free DNA is a screening test with the potential for false-positive and false-negative test results, such
testing should not be used as a substitute for diagnostic
testing. A large referral-based cytogenetics laboratory
reported their experience with 109 consecutive fetal
samples from pregnancies that had positive screening test
results for cell-free DNA screening from four different
laboratories that use varied cell-free DNA screening techniques. Based on cytogenetic confirmation, the positive
predictive value, or chance that a positive screening test
result was a true positive, using cell-free DNA screening
was 93% for Down syndrome, 64% for trisomy 18, 44%
for trisomy 13, and 39% for sex chromosome aneuploidy
(36). Because the test usually cannot distinguish fetal
DNA from maternal DNA, a positive screening test result
could represent confined placental mosaicism, a resorbing twin or, in rare instances, a maternal malignancy or
maternal aneuploidy (37).
The discrimination of euploid from aneuploid pregnancies with cell-free DNA screening is more effective
with larger fetal fractions. At 1113 weeks, the median
fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma is
approximately 10% (16). Factors contributing to low
fetal fraction include sampling before 10 weeks of gestation, high maternal body mass index, and fetal aneuploidy. In some laboratories, cell-free DNA fractions
less than 4% are considered too low to report a result,
often referred to as a no call result. Recent studies have
demonstrated that low fetal fractions indicate a high risk
of aneuploidy (23, 24, 29). In one study of more than
1,000 analyzed samples, 8% failed to obtain a result,
and 22% of those were aneuploid (29). Pregnancies that
initially do not return a cell-free DNA test result because
of low fetal fraction can be managed with repeat cell-free
DNA screening or diagnostic testing. However, if repeat
cell-free DNA screening is performed, this may delay
diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy, which may affect reproductive options for an abnormal result.
To date, most published experience with cell-free
DNA screening is based on studies conducted on highrisk populations. Data on the performance of cell-free
DNA testing in the general obstetric population are
now available (23, 3841). The sensitivity and specificity in the general obstetric population are similar to the

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e131

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

levels previously published for the high-risk population.

However, cell-free DNA screening cannot have the same
accuracy in low-risk pregnancies (eg, in young women)
because the positive predictive value is affected by the
prevalence of the disorder in the population. The positive
predictive value is lower in the general obstetric population because of the lower prevalence of aneuploidy in this
population.
In low-risk populations, there is a larger proportion
of false-positive test results among the patients who
receive positive screening test results. This decrease
in accuracy is especially concerning when pregnancy
terminations have been reported in women who have
positive screening test results for aneuploidy without a
confirmatory cytogenetic result (39). All women with a
positive cell-free DNA test result should have a diagnostic procedure before any irreversible action, such
as pregnancy termination, is taken. Some women who
receive a positive test result from traditional screening
may prefer to have cell-free DNA screening rather than
undergo definitive testing. This approach may delay
definitive diagnosis and management and may fail to
identify some fetuses with aneuploidy. Even if cell-free
DNA test results are a true positive, cell-free DNA cannot distinguish aneuploidy derived from a translocation
or nondisjunction, and this will affect counseling and
understanding of the recurrence risk. Women whose
cell-free DNA screening test results are not reported,
are indeterminate, or are uninterpretable (a no call test
result) should receive further genetic counseling and be
offered comprehensive ultrasound evaluation and diagnostic testing because of an increased risk of aneuploidy
(29, 40).
Cell-free DNA screening currently gives information
about the three most common aneuploidies and about fetal
sex but does not typically provide information about other
aneuploidies. Without published clinical validation trials, some laboratories have begun to offer cell-free DNA
screening for additional disorders, including two forms
of aneuploidy associated with nonviable pregnancies
(trisomy 16 and trisomy 22) and five or more microdeletion syndromes. A microdeletion syndrome is caused by
a chromosomal deletion encompassing contiguous genes
that is too small to be detected by conventional cytogenetics. Given the rarity of these disorders, it is uncertain
what a positive or negative screening test result means.
Cell-free DNA screening tests for microdeletions have not
been validated clinically and are not recommended at this
time. For women who wish to know whether their fetus
has a microdeletion, the best option is to undergo prenatal
diagnostic testing with microarray of fetal cells from CVS
or amniocentesis (35, 42).

e132 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

Cell-free DNA screening tests do not provide information regarding the potential for open fetal defects.
Therefore, women who undergo cell-free DNA screening
should be offered assessment for open fetal defects with
ultrasonography, MSAFP screening, or both.

How should aneuploidy screening test results

be interpreted and communicated?
Positive and negative screening cutoff levels usually are
defined by the different laboratories that perform these
analyses. Because of these differences, and because patients
interpret information differently, laboratory results should
be reported as either positive or negative, and the adjusted
numerical risk of aneuploidy based on the test should be
provided, regardless of the screening test performed. It
also is useful to contrast this risk with the patients prescreening age-related risk and the general population risk
to put the test result in context. Graphical representations
of results can be helpful to some patients. After all of this
information is provided, the patients understanding of the
results should be confirmed and documented.

What additional screening or diagnostic tests

should be offered after a positive screening test
result?
Women with a positive screening test result for fetal
aneuploidy should be offered further detailed counseling
and testing. Women found to have a positive screening
test result from a serum analyte or ultrasound screening
test should be offered further detailed counseling and
cell-free DNA screening or diagnostic testing by CVS
or amniocentesis. Parallel or simultaneous testing with
multiple screening methodologies for aneuploidy is not
cost-effective and should not be performed. However,
use of cell-free DNA screening as a follow-up test for
patients with a positive traditional screening test result is
reasonable for patients who want to avoid a diagnostic test.
However, this approach may delay definitive diagnosis
and management. Given that the residual risk of a chromosomal abnormality with a normal cell-free DNA screening
test result after an abnormal traditional screening test has
been reported to be 2%, patients should be informed of this
potential limitation (43). Women with an increased risk of
aneuploidy based on cell-free DNA screening should be
offered diagnostic testing and should undergo ultrasonography to evaluate for fetal structural anomalies. If MSAFP
has not been obtained as part of aneuploidy screening,
further screening for open fetal defects with MSAFP or
ultrasonography should be offered. In addition, evaluation
for fetal anomalies in the second trimester is appropriate for
all patients. In the first trimester, maternal serum levels of

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

pregnancy-associated plasma protein A below the fifth

percentile are independently associated with obstetric complications, such as spontaneous fetal and neonatal loss, fetal
growth restriction, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and
preterm delivery (44). In the second trimester, elevated hCG,
AFP, and dimeric inhibin A levels in pregnancies without
structural anomalies are associated with an increased risk of
fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preeclampsia
(45, 46). The likelihood of an adverse pregnancy outcome
increases with increasing number of abnormal markers in the
same screening test and with more extreme analyte values
(47). Although potential management strategies for women
with abnormal serum markers have been proposed, they are
not evidence based (47).
If a patient conceives and has undergone preimplantation genetic screening, prenatal screening for aneuploidy
still should be offered because false-negative test results can
occur with preimplantation genetic screening (48). Patients
who conceive after preimplantation genetic screening for
aneuploidy should be offered aneuploidy screening and diagnosis during pregnancy.

How does screening for aneuploidy differ in

multifetal gestations?
In multifetal gestations, the risk of fetal aneuploidy is
affected by the number of fetuses and the zygosity of the
pregnancy; however, data regarding the risk of aneuploidy
are more limited in multiple gestations compared with singleton pregnancies. In dizygous twin pregnancies, each fetus
carries a risk of aneuploidy generally similar to the mothers
age-adjusted risk, but the mother carries an increased risk of
having a fetus with aneuploidy because there is more than
one fetus. Typically, monozygous twins will have the same
karyotype, with neither or both fetuses being affected; the
risk of carrying aneuploid fetuses is similar to the mothers
age-adjusted risk.
No method of aneuploidy screening is as accurate in
twin gestations as it is in singleton pregnancies. Analysis
of the risks and benefits of screening or diagnostic testing
in women carrying multiple fetuses is much more complicated, given the diminished effectiveness of screening and
how the prenatal identification of a single aneuploid fetus
might affect the pregnancy management. Diagnostic testing
may be less acceptable to women with multiple gestations
because of the increased difficulty and higher potential loss
rates.
Nuchal translucency measurement allows each fetus in a
multifetal pregnancy to be screened independently and, therefore, can be used in twin or high-order multifetal gestations.
The distribution of nuchal translucency measurements does
not differ significantly between singletons and multiples,
and standard cutoffs can be used (49). One study reviewed

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

individual first-trimester screening in twin gestations and

generated individual risks for each fetus with nuchal translucencies and first-trimester screening. At a 1:300 cutoff, the
detection rate was 75% with a 9% positive screening rate for
trisomy 21 (50). However, the review concluded that a
greater reliance should be placed on nuchal translucency to
evaluate the fetuses for aneuploidy. A single enlarged nuchal
translucency in monochorionic twins of discordant size could
be an early sign of twintwin transfusion syndrome rather
than aneuploidy (51). These patients should be evaluated
further for this possibility.
Because data generally are unavailable for higher-order
multifetal gestations, analyte screening for fetal aneuploidy
should be limited to singleton and twin pregnancies. Firsttrimester, quad, and combined serum analyte screening are
options available to screen twin gestations, although few
data are available from prospective studies with regard to
screening. Analyte screening test results typically are provided for the entire gestation and not each individual fetus.
Second-trimester serum screening of twin gestations can
identify approximately 50% of fetuses affected with Down
syndrome at a 5% positive screening rate (52). Because of
limited evidence regarding its efficacy, cell-free DNA testing
is not recommended for aneuploidy screening in women with
multiple gestations (35).
In multifetal gestations, if fetal demise or an anomaly
is identified in one fetus, serum-based aneuploidy screening
should be discouraged. There is a significant risk of an inaccurate test result in these circumstances. The patient should
be offered counseling and consider diagnostic testing instead
of a screening test. The accuracy of aneuploidy screening in
a multiple gestation with a fetus that has an empty gestational
sac is not known.

Summary of
Recommendations and
Conclusions
The following recommendations and conclusions
are based on good and consistent scientific evidence (Level A):
Women who have a negative screening test result
should not be offered additional screening tests for
aneuploidy because this will increase their potential for
a false-positive test result.
If an enlarged nuchal translucency, an obvious anomaly,
or a cystic hygroma is identified on ultrasonography, the
patient should be offered genetic counseling and diagnostic testing for aneuploidy as well as follow-up ultrasonography for fetal structural abnormalities.

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e133

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 Patients with an enlarged nuchal translucency or cystic

hygroma and normal fetal karyotype should be offered
an anatomic evaluation in the second trimester, fetal
cardiac ultrasonography, and further counseling regarding the potential for genetic syndromes not detected by
aneuploidy screening.

Aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing should

be discussed and offered to all women early in pregnancy, ideally at the first prenatal visit.

Women who undergo first-trimester screening should be

offered second-trimester assessment for open fetal
defects (by ultrasonography, MSAFP screening, or
both) and ultrasound screening for other fetal structural
defects.

If an isolated ultrasonographic marker for aneuploidy

is detected, the patient should be offered aneuploidy
screening if it was not offered previously.

Because cell-free DNA is a screening test with the potential for false-positive and false-negative results, such testing should not be used as a substitute for diagnostic testing.
All women with a positive cell-free DNA test result
should have a diagnostic procedure before any irreversible action, such as pregnancy termination, is taken.
Women whose cell-free DNA screening test results are
not reported, are indeterminate, or are uninterpretable (a
no call test result) should receive further genetic counseling and be offered comprehensive ultrasound evaluation and diagnostic testing because of an increased risk
of aneuploidy.
Women with a positive screening test result for fetal
aneuploidy should be offered further detailed counseling
and testing.

The following recommendations and conclusions are

based on limited or inconsistent scientific
evidence (Level B):
Cell-free DNA screening tests for microdeletions have
not been validated clinically and are not recommended
at this time.
Patients who conceive after preimplantation genetic
screening for aneuploidy should be offered aneuploidy
screening and diagnosis during their pregnancy.
No method of aneuploidy screening is as accurate in
twin gestations as it is in singleton pregnancies. Because
data generally are unavailable for higher-order multifetal gestations, analyte screening for fetal aneuploidy
should be limited to singleton and twin pregnancies.

The following recommendations and conclusions

are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C):
Screening for aneuploidy should be an informed
patient choice, with an underlying foundation of
shared decision making that fits the patients clinical circumstances, values, interests, and goals.

e134 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

All women should be offered the option of aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing for fetal
genetic disorders, regardless of maternal age.

Some women who receive a positive test result from

traditional screening may prefer to have cell-free
DNA screening rather than undergo definitive testing. This approach may delay definitive diagnosis
and management and may fail to identify some
fetuses with aneuploidy.
Parallel or simultaneous testing with multiple
screening methodologies for aneuploidy is not costeffective and should not be performed.
In multifetal gestations, if fetal demise or an anomaly is identified in one fetus, serum-based aneuploidy screening should be discouraged. There is a
significant risk of an inaccurate test result in these
circumstances.

For More Information

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has identified additional resources on topics
related to this document that may be helpful for obgyns, other health care providers, and patients. You
may view these resources at www.acog.org/more-info/
AneuploidyScreening.
These resources are for information only and are not
meant to be comprehensive. Referral to these resources
does not imply the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists endorsement of the organization, the
organizations web site, or the content of the resource.
The resources may change without notice.

References
1. Nussbaum RL, McInnes RR, Willard HF. Principles of
clinical cytogenetics and genome analysis. In: Thompson
& Thompson genetics in medicine. Philadelphia (PA):
Elsevier; 2016. p. 5774. (Level III) ^
2. Sherman SL, Allen EG, Bean LH, Freeman SB.
Epidemiology of Down syndrome. Ment Retard Dev
Disabil Res Rev 2007;13:2217. (Level III) [PubMed] ^
3. Morris JK, Wald NJ, Watt HC. Fetal loss in Down syndrome pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:1425. (Level III)
[PubMed] [Full Text] ^

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

4. Glasson EJ, Sullivan SG, Hussain R, Petterson BA,

Montgomery PD, Bittles AH. The changing survival profile of people with Downs syndrome: implications for
genetic counselling. Clin Genet 2002;62:3903. (Level II-3)
[PubMed] ^

College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology,

and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging
workshop. Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants.
Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:107082. (Level III) [PubMed]
[Obstetrics & Gynecology] ^

5. Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock

CH, Bukowski R, et al. First-trimester or secondtrimester screening, or both, for Downs syndrome. Firstand Second-Trimester Evaluation of Risk (FASTER)
Research Consortium. N Engl J Med 2005;353:200111.
(Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^

16. Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, Rezende JC, Nicolaides

KH. Fetal fraction in maternal plasma cell-free DNA
at 11-13 weeks gestation: relation to maternal and
fetal characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:
2632. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^

6. Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, Mansur C, Marks K.

Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ
1992;304:8679. (Level II-2) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
7. Evans MI, Van Decruyes H, Nicolaides KH. Nuchal
translucency measurements for first-trimester screening:
the price of inaccuracy. Fetal Diagn Ther 2007;22:
4014. (Level II-3) [PubMed] ^
8. Palomaki GE, Neveux LM, Knight GJ, Haddow JE,
Pandian R. Maternal serum invasive trophoblast antigen (hyperglycosylated hCG) as a screening marker for
Down syndrome during the second trimester. Clin Chem
2004;50:18048. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
9. Weisz B, Pandya P, Chitty L, Jones P, Huttly W, Rodeck
C. Practical issues drawn from the implementation of the
integrated test for Down syndrome screening into routine
clinical practice. BJOG 2007;114:4937. (Level II-3)
[PubMed] [Full Text] ^
10. Cuckle HS, Malone FD, Wright D, Porter TF, Nyberg
DA, Comstock CH, et al. Contingent screening for Down
syndrome--results from the FaSTER trial. Prenat Diagn
2008;28:8994. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
11. Baer RJ, Flessel MC, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Goldman
S, Hudgins L, Hull AD, et al. Detection rates for
aneuploidy by first-trimester and sequential screening.
Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:7539. (Level II-3) [PubMed]
[Obstetrics & Gynecology] ^
12. Aagaard-Tillery KM, Malone FD, Nyberg DA, Porter
TF, Cuckle HS, Fuchs K, et al. Role of second-trimester
genetic sonography after Down syndrome screening.
First and Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk Research
Consortium. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:118996.
(Level II-3) [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ^
13. Agathokleous M, Chaveeva P, Poon LC, Kosinski P,
Nicolaides KH. Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;
41:24761. (Meta-analysis) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
14. Nyberg DA, Souter VL, El-Bastawissi A, Young S,
Luthhardt F, Luthy DA. Isolated sonographic markers for
detection of fetal Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:105363.
(Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
15. Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR. Fetal
imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine,
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

17. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL,

Redman CW, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal
plasma and serum. Lancet 1997;350:4857. (Level III)
[PubMed] [Full Text] ^
18. Amicucci P, Gennarelli M, Novelli G, Dallapiccola B.
Prenatal diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy using fetal DNA
obtained from maternal plasma. Clin Chem 2000;46:
3012. (Level III) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
19. Chitty LS, Finning K, Wade A, Soothill P, Martin B,
Oxenford K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of routine antenatal
determination of fetal RHD status across gestation: population based cohort study. BMJ 2014;349:g5243. (Level III)
[PubMed] [Full Text] ^
20. Li Y, Page-Christiaens GC, Gille JJ, Holzgreve W, Hahn S.
Non-invasive prenatal detection of achondroplasia in sizefractionated cell-free DNA by MALDI-TOF MS assay.
Prenat Diagn 2007;27:117. (Level III) [PubMed] ^
21. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides
KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in
screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:24966. (Level III)
[PubMed] [Full Text] ^
22. Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wagner M, Birdir C, Nicolaides
KH. Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal
plasma cell-free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:
322.e15. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
23. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ,
Sehnert AJ, Rava RP. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy
detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. MatErnal
BLood IS Source to Accurately diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group [published erratum
appears in Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:957]. Obstet Gynecol
2012;119:890901. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Obstetrics &
Gynecology]^
24. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, Karimi A, Laurent LC,
Caughey AB, et al. Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation
(NICE) Study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort
study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:137.e18. (Level II-3) [PubMed]
[Full Text] ^
25. Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM,
Haddow JE, Neveux LM, Ehrich M, et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an
international clinical validation study. Genet Med 2011;13:
91320. (Level II-3) [PubMed] ^
26. Palomaki GE, Deciu C, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian
GM, Haddow JE, Neveux LM, et al. DNA sequencing of
maternal plasma reliably identifies trisomy 18 and trisomy

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e135

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

13 as well as Down syndrome: an international collaborative study. Genet Med 2012;14:296305. (Level II-3)
[PubMed] [Full Text] ^
27. Sparks AB, Struble CA, Wang ET, Song K, Oliphant A.
Noninvasive prenatal detection and selective analysis of
cell-free DNA obtained from maternal blood: evaluation
for trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2012;206:319.e19. (Level III) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
28. Taylor-Phillips S, Freeman K, Geppert J, Agbebiyi A,
Uthman OA, Madan 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:e010002.
(Meta-analysis) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
29. Pergament E, Cuckle H, Zimmermann B, Banjevic M,
Sigurjonsson S, Ryan A, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal screening in a high-risk
and low-risk cohort. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:2108.
(Level II-3) [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology]^
30. Prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Practice
Bulletin No. 162. American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:e10822.
(Level III) ^
31. Egan JF, Malakh L, Turner GW, Markenson G, Wax
JR, Benn PA. Role of ultrasound for Down syndrome
screening in advanced maternal age. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2001;185:102831. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
32. Vintzileos AM, Guzman ER, Smulian JC, Yeo L, Scorza
WE, Knuppel RA. Down syndrome risk estimation
after normal genetic sonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2002;187:12269. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
33. Nicolaides KH, Heath V, Cicero S. Increased fetal nuchaltranslucency at 11-14 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:
30815. (Level III) [PubMed] ^
34. Malone FD, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Saade
GR, Berkowitz RL, et al. First-trimester septated cystic hygroma: prevalence, natural history, and pediatric
outcome. FASTER Trial Research Consortium. Obstet
Gynecol 2005;106:28894. (Level II-2) [PubMed]
[Obstetrics & Gynecology]^
35. Cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Committee
Opinion No. 640. American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e317.
(Level III) [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology]^
36. Wang JC, Sahoo T, Schonberg S, Kopita KA, Ross L,
Patek K, et al. Discordant noninvasive prenatal testing
and cytogenetic results: a study of 109 consecutive cases.
Genet Med 2015;17:2346. (Level III) [PubMed] [Full
Text] ^
37. Amant F, Verheecke M, Wlodarska I, Dehaspe L, Brady P,
Brison N, et al. Presymptomatic Identification of Cancers
in Pregnant Women During Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.
JAMA Oncol 2015;1:8149. (Level III) [PubMed] ^
38. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R,
Saffer C, Das AF, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. CARE Study Group.
N Engl J Med 2014;370:799808. (Level II-3) [PubMed]
[Full Text] ^

e136 Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy

39. Dar P, Curnow KJ, Gross SJ, Hall MP, Stosic M, Demko
Z, et al. Clinical experience and follow-up with large scale
single-nucleotide polymorphism-based noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211:
527.e117. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
40. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC,
Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for
noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med
2015;372:158997. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text]^
41. Zhang H, Gao Y, Jiang F, Fu M, Yuan Y, Guo Y, et al.
Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and
13: clinical experience from 146,958 pregnancies [published erratum appears in Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
2015;46:130]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:5308.
(Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
42. Prenatal aneuploidy screening using cell-free DNA.
SMFM Consult Series No. 36. Society for Maternal-Fetal
Medicine (SMFM). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:7116.
(Level III) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
43. Norton ME, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ.
Chromosome abnormalities detected by current prenatal
screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol
2014;124:97986. (Level III) [PubMed] [Obstetrics &
Gynecology] ^
44. Dugoff L, Hobbins JC, Malone FD, Porter TF, Luthy
D, Comstock CH, et al. First-trimester maternal serum
PAPP-A and free-beta subunit human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations and nuchal translucency are associated with obstetric complications: a population-based
screening study (the FASTER Trial). Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2004;191:144651. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full
Text] ^
45. Chandra S, Scott H, Dodds L, Watts C, Blight C, Van
Den Hof M. Unexplained elevated maternal serum alphafetoprotein and/or human chorionic gonadotropin and
the risk of adverse outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2003;189:77581. (Level II-2) [PubMed] [Full Text] ^
46. Dugoff L, Hobbins JC, Malone FD, Vidaver J, Sullivan
L, Canick JA, et al. Quad screen as a predictor of adverse
pregnancy outcome. FASTER Trial Research Consortium.
Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:2607. PMID: 16055573.
(Level II-3) [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ^
47. Dugoff L. First- and second-trimester maternal serum
markers for aneuploidy and adverse obstetric outcomes.
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstet Gynecol
2010;115:105261. (Level III) [PubMed] [Obstetrics &
Gynecology] ^
48. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee
opinion. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted
Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of
American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil
Steril 2008;90:S13643. (Level III) [PubMed] [Full Text]
^
49. Cleary-Goldman J, DAlton ME, Berkowitz RL. Prenatal
diagnosis and multiple pregnancy. Semin Perinatol
2005;29:31220. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text]^
50. Spencer K, Nicolaides KH. Screening for trisomy 21
in twins using first trimester ultrasound and maternal
serum biochemistry in a one-stop clinic: a review of three

OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

years experience. BJOG 2003;110:27680. (Level III)

[PubMed] [Full Text] ^
51. 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:
52732. (Level II-3) [PubMed] [Full Text]^
52. Neveux LM, Palomaki GE, Knight GJ, Haddow JE.
Multiple marker screening for Down syndrome in twin
pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 1996;16:2934. (Level III)
[PubMed] ^

The MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library, and the

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
own internal resources and documents were used to con
duct a literature search to locate relevant articles pub
lished between January 1985July 2014. The search was
re
strict
ed to ar
ti
cles pub
lished in the English lan
guage.
Priority was given to articles reporting results of original
research, although review articles and commentaries also
were consulted. Abstracts of research presented at sympo
sia and scientific conferences were not considered adequate
for inclusion in this document. Guidelines published by
organizations or institutions such as the National Institutes
of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists were reviewed, and additional studies were
located by reviewing bibliographies of identified articles.
When reliable research was not available, expert opinions
from obstetriciangynecologists were used.
Studies were reviewed and evaluated for quality according
to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services
Task Force:
I

Evidence obtained from at least one prop

er
ly
designed randomized controlled trial.
II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed con
trolled
trials without randomization.
II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed co
hort or
casecontrol analytic studies, preferably from more
than one center or research group.
II-3 Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or
without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncon
trolled experiments also could be regarded as this
type of evidence.
III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical
experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert
committees.
Based on the highest level of evidence found in the data,
recommendations are provided and graded according to the
following categories:
Level ARecommendations are based on good and con
sistent scientific evidence.
Level BRecommendations are based on limited or incon
sistent scientific evidence.
Level CRecommendations are based primarily on con
sensus and expert opinion.
Copyright May 2016 by the American College of Ob
stetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
posted on the Internet, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Requests for authorization to make photocopies should be
directed to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
409 12th Street, SW, PO Box 96920, Washington, DC 20090-6920
Screening for fetal aneuploidy. Practice Bulletin No. 163. American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2016;
127:e12337.

VOL. 127, NO. 5, MAY 2016

Practice Bulletin Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy e137

Copyright by The American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.