Journal of Genetic Medicine

Korean Society of Medical Genetics and Genomics (대한의학유전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical significance of sonographic soft markers: A review

  • Kim, Mi Sun (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Sukho (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Hee Young (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.12.22
  • Accepted : 2018.03.22
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Sonographic findings with little or no pathological significance, known as soft markers, are often found in aneuploidy fetuses. After normal screening for the aneuploidy in first trimester, there are no uniform recommendations regarding when to disregard or put on clinical significance in isolated soft markers. Associations between some soft markers and adverse pregnancy outcomes including intrauterine fetal death, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and congenital infection have been reported in euploidy fetuses. The present article aims to review recent literatures about the clinical significance of soft markers after normal first trimester combined screening or noninvasive prenatal testing, and propose a simple clinical summary for management of specific soft markers in pregnancies.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahman A, Axelsson O, Maras G, Rubertsson C, Sarkadi A, Lindgren P. Ultrasonographic fetal soft markers in a low-risk population: prevalence, association with trisomies and invasive tests. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014;93:367-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12334
  2. Hurt L, Wright M, Brook F, Thomas S, Dunstan F, Fone D, et al. The Welsh study of mothers and babies: protocol for a population-based cohort study to investigate the clinical significance of defined ultrasound findings of uncertain significance. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:164. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-164
  3. Hurt L, Wright M, Dunstan F, Thomas S, Brook F, Morris S, et al. Prevalence of defined ultrasound findings of unknown significance at the second trimester fetal anomaly scan and their association with adverse pregnancy outcomes: the Welsh study of mothers and babies population-based cohort. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:40-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4708
  4. Stefanovic V. Soft markers for aneuploidy following reassuring first trimester screening: what should be done? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015;27:151-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000157
  5. Liau J, Romine L, Korty LA, Chao C, White K, Harmon S, et al. Simplifying the ultrasound findings of the major fetal chromosomal aneuploidies. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2014;43:300-16. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2014.04.004
  6. Cicero S, Sacchini C, Rembouskos G, Nicolaides KH. Sonographic markers of fetal aneuploidy--a review. Placenta 2003;24 Suppl B:S88-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-4004(03)00141-3
  7. Russo ML, Blakemore KJ. A historical and practical review of first trimester aneuploidy screening. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19:183-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2013.11.013
  8. Schwartz S, Kohan M, Pasion R, Papenhausen PR, Platt LD. Clinical experience of laboratory follow-up with noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA and positive microdeletion results in 349 cases. Prenat Diagn 2018;38:210-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5217
  9. Norton ME, Biggio JR, Kuller JA, Blackwell SC; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). The role of ultrasound in women who undergo cell-free DNA screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:B2-7.
  10. Bromley B, Shipp TD, Lyons J, Groszmann Y, Navathe RS, Benacerraf BR. What is the importance of second-trimester "soft markers" for trisomy 21 after an 11- to 14-week aneuploidy screening scan? J Ultrasound Med 2014;33:1747-52. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.33.10.1747
  11. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Audibert F, Kagan KO, Paladini D, Yeo G, et al. ISUOG consensus statement on the impact of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on prenatal ultrasound practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;44:122-3.
  12. Catania VD, Taddei A, Pellegrino M, De Marco EA, Merli L, Manzoni C, et al. Hyperechogenic bowel: etiologies, management, and outcome according to gestational age at diagnosis in 279 consecutive cases in a single center. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2017;27:109-15.
  13. Norton ME. Follow-up of sonographically detected soft markers for fetal aneuploidy. Semin Perinatol 2013;37:365-9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2013.06.015
  14. Mallik M, Watson AR. Antenatally detected urinary tract abnormalities: more detection but less action. Pediatr Nephrol 2008;23:897-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-008-0746-9
  15. Signorelli M, Cerri V, Taddei F, Groli C, Bianchi UA. Prenatal diagnosis and management of mild fetal pyelectasis: implications for neonatal outcome and follow-up. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;118:154-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.04.023
  16. Scala C, Familiari A, Pinas A, Papageorghiou AT, Bhide A, Thilaganathan B, et al. Perinatal and long-term outcomes in fetuses diagnosed with isolated unilateral ventriculomegaly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49:450-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15943
  17. Bar-Yosef O, Barzilay E, Dorembus S, Achiron R, Katorza E. Neurodevelopmental outcome of isolated ventriculomegaly: a prospective cohort study. Prenat Diagn 2017;37:764-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5078
  18. Weichert J, Hartge D, Krapp M, Germer U, Gembruch U, Axt-Fliedner R. Prevalence, characteristics and perinatal outcome of fetal ventriculomegaly in 29,000 pregnancies followed at a single institution. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27:142-8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000304735
  19. Pagani G, Thilaganathan B, Prefumo F. Neurodevelopmental outcome in isolated mild fetal ventriculomegaly: systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;44:254-60.
  20. Beke A, Barakonyi E, Belics Z, Joo JG, Csaba A, Papp C, et al. Risk of chromosome abnormalities in the presence of bilateral or unilateral choroid plexus cysts. Fetal Diagn Ther 2008;23:185-91. https://doi.org/10.1159/000116739
  21. Coco C, Jeanty P. Karyotyping of fetuses with isolated choroid plexus cysts is not justified in an unselected population. J Ultrasound Med 2004;23:899-906. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2004.23.7.899
  22. DiPietro JA, Cristofalo EA, Voegtline KM, Crino J. Isolated prenatal choroid plexus cysts do not affect child development. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:745-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2757
  23. Cicero S, Curcio P, Papageorghiou A, Sonek J, Nicolaides K. Absence of nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11-14 weeks of gestation: an observational study. Lancet 2001;358:1665-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06709-5
  24. Dukhovny S, Wilkins-Haug L, Shipp TD, Benson CB, Kaimal AJ, Reiss R. Absent fetal nasal bone: what does it mean for the euploid fetus? J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:2131-4. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.32.12.2131
  25. Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Walton-Haynes L, Currier RJ. Identification of second trimester screen positive pregnancies at increased risk for congenital heart defects. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:570-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2239
  26. 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;20:1053-63. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2001.20.10.1053
  27. Rodriguez R, Herrero B, Bartha JL. The continuing enigma of the fetal echogenic intracardiac focus in prenatal ultrasound. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013;25:145-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32835e14eb
  28. Bronshtein M, Jakobi P, Ofir C. Multiple fetal intracardiac echogenic foci: not always a benign sonographic finding. Prenat Diagn 1996;16:131-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199602)16:2<131::AID-PD823>3.0.CO;2-Q
  29. Goetzinger KR, Cahill AG, Macones GA, Odibo AO. Echogenic bowel on second-trimester ultrasonography: evaluating the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1341-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821aa739
  30. Kaijomaa M, Ulander VM, Ryynanen M, Stefanovic V. Risk of adverse outcomes in euploid pregnancies with isolated short fetal femur and humerus on second-trimester sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2016;35:2675-80. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.16.01086
  31. Mathiesen JM, Aksglaede L, Skibsted L, Petersen OB, Tabor A; Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group. Outcome of fetuses with short femur length detected at second-trimester anomaly scan: a national survey. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;44:160-5.
  32. Aviram A, Bardin R, Wiznitzer A, Yogev Y, Hadar E. Midtrimester isolated short femur length as a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcome. Fetal Diagn Ther 2015;38:205-11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000375446
  33. Kim HJ, Kim JH, Chay DB, Park JH, Kim MA. Association of isolated single umbilical artery with perinatal outcomes: systemic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2017;60:266-73. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2017.60.3.266
  34. Voskamp BJ, Fleurke-Rozema H, Oude-Rengerink K, Snijders RJ, Bilardo CM, Mol BW, et al. Relationship of isolated single umbilical artery to fetal growth, aneuploidy and perinatal mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:622-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12541
  35. Battarbee AN, Palatnik A, Ernst LM, Grobman WA. Association of isolated single umbilical artery with small for gestational age and preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:760-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001037
  36. Ashwal E, Melamed N, Hiersch L, Edel S, Bardin R, Wiznitzer A, et al. The impact of isolated single umbilical artery on labor and delivery outcome. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:581-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4352
  37. Malinger G, Lev D, Lerman-Sagie T. Imaging of fetal cytomegalovirus infection. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011;29:117-26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000321346
  38. Pasquini L, Seravalli V, Sisti G, Battaglini C, Nepi F, Pelagalli R, et al. Prevalence of a positive TORCH and parvovirus B19 screening in pregnancies complicated by polyhydramnios. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:290-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4769
  39. Jung E, Won HS, Lee PR, Kim A. Ultrasonographic measurement of fetal nasal bone length in the second trimester in Korean population. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:154-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1641
  40. Abele H, Wagner P, Sonek J, Hoopmann M, Brucker S, Artunc-Ulkumen B, et al. First trimester ultrasound screening for Down syndrome based on maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency and different combinations of the additional markers nasal bone, tricuspid and ductus venosus flow. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:1182-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4664
  41. Wax JR, Donnelly J, Carpenter M, Chard R, Pinette MG, Blackstone J, et al. Childhood cardiac function after prenatal diagnosis of intracardiac echogenic foci. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:783-7. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2003.22.8.783
  42. Perles Z, Nir A, Gavri S, Golender J, Rein AJ. Intracardiac echogenic foci have no hemodynamic significance in the fetus. Pediatr Cardiol 2010;31:7-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-009-9524-0
  43. Gupta G, Aggarwal S, Phadke SR. Intracardiac echogenic focus and fetal outcome. J Clin Ultrasound 2010;38:466-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20741
  44. Patel Y, Boyd PA, Chamberlain P, Lakhoo K. Follow-up of children with isolated fetal echogenic bowel with particular reference to bowelrelated symptoms. Prenat Diagn 2004;24:35-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.787
  45. Odibo AO, Marchiano D, Quinones JN, Riesch D, Egan JF, Macones GA. Mild pyelectasis: evaluating the relationship between gestational age and renal pelvic anterior-posterior diameter. Prenat Diagn 2003;23:824-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.709