PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Dave Wright

Publications and source records attributed to Dave Wright.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Reproducibility of risk figures in 2nd-trimester maternal serum screening for down syndrome: comparison of 2 laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Analytical error affects 2nd-trimester maternal serum screening for Down syndrome risk estimation. We analyzed the between-laboratory reproducibility of risk estimates from 2 laboratories. METHODS: Laboratory 1 used Bayer ACS180 immunoassays for alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), Diagnostic Systems Laboratories (DSL) RIA for unconjugated estriol (uE3), and DSL enzyme immunoassay for inhibin-A (INH-A). Laboratory 2 used Beckman immunoassays for AFP, hCG, and uE3, and DSL enzyme immunoassay for INH-A. Analyte medians were separately established for each laboratory. We used the same computational algorithm for all risk calculations, and we used Monte Carlo methods for computer modeling. RESULTS: For 462 samples tested, risk figures from the 2 laboratories differed >2-fold for 44.7%, >5-fold for 7.1%, and >10-fold for 1.7%. Between-laboratory differences in analytes were greatest for uE3 and INH-A. The screen-positive rates were 9.3% for laboratory 1 and 11.5% for laboratory 2, with a significant difference in the patients identified as screen-positive vs screen-negative (McNemar test, P<0.001). Computer modeling confirmed the large between-laboratory risk differences. CONCLUSION: Differences in performance of assays and laboratory procedures can have a large effect on patient-specific risks. Screening laboratories should minimize test imprecision and ensure that each assay performs in a manner similar to that assumed in the risk computational algorithm.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Three-stage contingent screening for Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the potential value of three-stage sequential screening for Down syndrome. METHODS: Protocols were considered in which maternal serum pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) measurements were taken on all women in the first trimester. Those women with very low Down syndrome risks were screened negative at that stage and nuchal translucency (NT) was measured on the remainder and the risk reassessed. Those with very low risk were then screened negative and those with very high risk were offered early diagnostic testing. Those with intermediate risks received second-trimester maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein, free beta-hCG, unconjugated estriol and inhibin-A. Risk was then reassessed and those with high risk were offered diagnosis. Detection rates and false-positive rates were estimated by multivariate Gaussian modelling using Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The modelling suggests that, with full adherence to a three-stage policy, overall detection rates of nearly 90% and false-positive rates below 2.0% can be achieved. Approximately two-thirds of pregnancies are screened on the basis of first-trimester biochemistry alone, five out of six women complete their screening in the first trimester, and the first-trimester detection rate is over 60%. CONCLUSION: Three-stage contingent sequential screening is potentially highly effective for Down syndrome screening. The acceptability of this protocol and its performance in practice, should be tested in prospective studies.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2005

Practical strategies in contingent sequential screening for Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To design and assess the performance of protocols for contingent sequential Down syndrome screening that can be implemented in practice. METHODS: Protocols were designed in which all women received first-trimester measurement of nuchal translucency (NT) together with maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and either free beta- or total human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Those women with borderline Down syndrome risks received follow-up second-trimester maternal serum involving double, triple, or quadruple serum screening markers: alpha-fetoprotein, free beta-hCG or total hCG, unconjugated estriol and inhibin-A. Specific ranges of risks were used to define the borderline group. Separate protocols were developed for the United Kingdom and the United States to reflect differences in commonly used tests, cut-offs, and the gestational age at testing. Detection rates and false-positive rates were estimated by multivariate Gaussian modelling with Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Proposed protocols based on first-trimester NT, PAPP-A and free beta-hCG or total hCG, followed by selective use of second-trimester quadruple markers can result in a 91% detection rate and 2.1% false-positive rate for the United Kingdom and a detection rate of 89% and false-positive rate of 3.1% for the United States. For both countries, over 60% of affected pregnancies would be detected in the first trimester and less than 20% of women would require a second-trimester Down syndrome risk assessment. Use of alternative cut-offs to define those with borderline risks or different combinations of second-trimester markers also yielded high detection rates and low false-positive rates. CONCLUSION: With appropriate patient counselling, it should be possible to provide highly effective Down syndrome screening using contingent sequential protocols.

Biomarkers↗
PubMed2005

Down syndrome screening in the first and/or second trimester: model predicted performance using meta-analysis parameters.

OBJECTIVE: To predict the screening performance for 17 policies currently in use or being considered for the near future. METHODS: Multivariate Gaussian modeling using parameters derived from published meta-analyses and new meta-analyses for gestation-specific nuchal translucency and between trimester correlations. RESULTS: For a 1% to 5% false-positive rate, first trimester screening achieved detection rates up to 16% to 25% higher than the best second trimester combination. Screening in both trimesters sequentially could yield an even greater increase in detection of 24% to 35%. The most efficient sequential policy was contingent screening, which has a high detection rate with only 15% of women needing second trimester tests. CONCLUSION: Modeling with meta-analysis derived parameters provides a reliable guide for policy and favors a contingent screening policy. The widespread practice of calculating first and second trimester risks separately should be abandoned.

Chorionic Gonadotropin↗
PubMed2004

Contingent screening for Down syndrome is an efficient alternative to non-disclosure sequential screening.

OBJECTIVE: To present a first and second trimester Down syndrome screening strategy, whereby second-trimester marker determination is contingent on the first-trimester results. Unlike non-disclosure sequential screening ('the Integrated test'), which requires all women to have markers in both trimesters, this allows a large proportion of the women to complete screening in the first trimester. METHODS: Two first-trimester risk cut-offs defined three types of results: positive and referred for early diagnosis; negative with screening complete; and intermediate, needing second-trimester markers. Multivariate Gaussian modelling with Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the false-positive rate for a fixed 85% detection rate. The false-positive rate was evaluated for various early detection rates and early test completion rates. Model parameters were taken from the SURUSS trial. RESULTS: Completion of screening in the first trimester for 75% of women resulted in a 30% early detection rate and a 55% second trimester detected rate (net 85%) with a false-positive rate only 0.1% above that achievable by the Integrated test. The screen-positive rate was 0.1% in the first trimester and 4.7% for those continuing to be tested in the second trimester. If the early detection rate were to be increased to 45% or the early completion rate were to be increased to 80%, there would be a further 0.1% increase in the false-positive rate. CONCLUSION: Contingent screening can achieve results comparable with the Integrated test but with earlier completion of screening for most women. Both strategies need to be evaluated in large-scale prospective studies particularly in relation to psychological impact and practicability.

Biomarkers↗