Biparietal diameter and crown-rump length in fetuses with Down's syndrome: implications for antenatal serum screening for Down's syndrome

• Published in: British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Vol. 100; no. 5; p. 430
• Main Authors: Wald, N J, Smith, D, Kennard, A, Palomaki, G E, Salonen, R, Holzgreve, W, Pejtsik, B, Coombes, E J, Mancini, G, MacRae, A R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.05.1993
• Subjects: Case-Control Studies; Cephalometry; Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging; Down Syndrome - pathology; Down Syndrome - prevention & control; Female; Fetus - pathology; Gestational Age; Humans; Maternal Age; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
• ISSN: 0306-5456
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15267.x

1. To compare the ultrasound biparietal diameter and crown-rump length of fetuses with and without Down's syndrome in the first half of pregnancy; 2. To investigate the effect of estimation of gestational age using either measure on the detection rate of serum screening for Down's syndrome. Matched case-control study. Cases were singleton Down's syndrome pregnancies with a biparietal diameter or a crown-rump length recorded. Five controls were matched to each case on: medical centre; the date of the ultrasound scan examination (within two years); gestational age measured as the number of days since the first day of the last menstrual period; and the ultrasound measure used (ie the biparietal diameter (the measure of choice), or the crown-rump length otherwise). If a woman had a serum screening test for Down's syndrome, the biparietal diameter or crown-rump length measurement had to be taken prior to the screening test so that the result of the test could not influence whether a scan was performed. Ten antenatal screening centres in seven countries in Europe and North America. Two hundred and one women with singleton Down's syndrome pregnancies and 1005 women with unaffected singleton pregnancies. The median biparietal diameter of fetuses with Down's syndrome was identical to that among the controls (median difference 0.0 mm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.5 to 0.5 mm). The estimates of gestational age based on biparietal diameter yielded a median gestational age less than that based on the women's last menstrual period: three days less for cases and two days less for controls; small but statistically significant differences probably reflected a minor systematic difference in the conversion of a biparietal diameter to a gestational age estimate. The median crown-rump length of fetuses with Down's syndrome was also identical to that among controls (median difference 0.0 mm, 95% CI-1.5 to 2.0 mm). There was no significant difference between the median gestational age estimate based on crown-rump length and that based on the women's last menstrual period. In antenatal screening for Down's syndrome the routine use of an ultrasound biparietal diameter or crown-rump length measurement to estimate gestational age will not adversely affect the detection rate. To avoid differences in gestational age estimates using the last menstrual period and the biparietal diameter influencing screening performance, separate medians should be derived for each serum marker using the two methods of estimating gestational age. The appropriate set of medians can then be used to calculate the multiple of the median value for each woman screened depending on the method used to estimate her gestational age.