Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome

Abstract

Objective To ‘map’ the current (2004) state of prenatal screening in Europe. Design (i) Survey of country policies and (ii) analysis of data from EUROCAT (European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies) population‐based congenital anomaly registers. Setting Europe. Population Survey of prenatal screening policies in 18 countries and 1.13 million births in 12 countries in 2002–04. Methods (i) Questionnaire on national screening policies and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) laws in 2004. (ii) Analysis of data on prenatal detection and termination for Down’s syndrome and neural tube defects (NTDs) using the EUROCAT database. Main outcome measures Existence of national prenatal screening policies, legal gestation limit for TOPFA, prenatal detection and termination rates for Down’s syndrome and NTD. Results Ten of the 18 countries had a national country‐wide policy for Down’s syndrome screening and 14/18 for structural anomaly scanning. Sixty‐eight percent of Down’s syndrome cases (range 0–95%) were detected prenatally, of which 88% resulted in termination of pregnancy. Eighty‐eight percent (range 25–94%) of cases of NTD were prenatally detected, of which 88% resulted in termination. Countries with a first‐trimester screening policy had the highest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down’s syndrome cases. Countries with no official national Down’s syndrome screening or structural anomaly scan policy had the lowest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down’s syndrome and NTD cases. Six of the 18 countries had a legal gestational age limit for TOPFA, and in two countries, termination of pregnancy was illegal at any gestation. Conclusions There are large differences in screening policies between countries in Europe. These, as well as organisational and cultural factors, are associated with wide country variation in prenatal detection rates for Down’s syndrome and NTD.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 19

1. 1.

   Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A. Antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. J Med Screen. 1997;4:181-246.

   Not in our library10.1177/096914139700400402

2. 2.

   Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Bukowski R, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2001-11.

   Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa043693

3. 3.

   Wald NJ, Watt HC, Hackshaw AK. Integrated screening for Down's syndrome on the basis of tests performed during the first and second trimesters. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:461-7.

   Not in our library10.1056/nejm199908123410701

4. 4.

   Wapner R, Thom E, Simpson JL, Pergament E, Silver R, Filkins K, et al. First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1405-13.

   Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa025273

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:931-9.

   Not in our library10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00210-9

8. 8.

   Robbins AS, Chao SY, Fonseca VP. What's the relative risk? A method to directly estimate risk ratios in cohort studies of common outcomes. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12:452-4.

   Not in our library10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00278-2

9. 9.

   Leschot NJ, Vejerslev LO. Prenatal Diagnosis in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 1997;(Suppl 1):5.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Boyd PA, Wellesley DG, De Walle HEK, Tenconi R, Garcia-Minaur S, Zandwijken GRJ, et al. Evaluation of the prenatal diagnosis of neural tube defects by fetal ultrasonographic examination in different centres across Europe. J Med Screen. 2000;7:169-74.

    Not in our library10.1136/jms.7.4.169

11. 11.

    Marteau TM. Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: a review. Prenat Diagn. 1995;15:1215-26.

    Not in our library10.1002/pd.1970151304

12. 12.

    Marteau TM. Prenatal testing: towards realistic expectations of patients, providers and policy makers. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:5-6.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00619.x

13. 13.

    Asch A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1649-57.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.89.11.1649

14. 14.

    Marteau TM, Drake H. Attributions for disability: the influence of genetic screening. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40:1127-32.

    Not in our library10.1016/0277-9536(94)00180-2

15. 15.

    Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau TM. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. European Concerted Action: DADA (Decision-making After the Diagnosis of a fetal Abnormality). Prenat Diagn. 1999;19:808-12.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Bonnet D, Coltri A, Butera G, Fermont L, Le Bidois J, Kachaner J, et al. Detection of transposition of the great arteries in fetuses reduces neonatal morbidity and mortality. Circulation. 1999;99:916-18.

    Not in our library10.1161/01.cir.99.7.916

17. 17.

    Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Vodovar V, Goujard J, Lhomme A, Bonnet D, et al. Trends in prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy termination, and perinatal mortality of newborns with congenital heart defects in France, 1983-2000: a population-based evaluation. Pediatrics. 2005;115:95-101.

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2004-0516

18. 18.

    Lo YM, Tsui NBY, Chiu RWK, Lau TK, Leung TN, Heung MM, et al. Plasma placental RNA allelic ratio permits noninvasive prenatal chromosomal aneuploidy detection. Nat Med. 2007;13:218-23.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1530

19. 19.

    Dhallon R, Guo X, Emche S, Damewood M, Bayliss P, Cronin M, et al. A non-invasive test for prenatal diagnosis based on fetal DNA present in maternal blood: a preliminary study. Lancet. 2007;369:474-81.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60115-9

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.