Rapid testing versus karyotyping in Down's syndrome screening: cost-effectiveness and detection of clinically significant chromosome abnormalities

J Gekas, DG van den Berg, A Durand, M Vallee, Hajo Wildschut, E Bujold, JC Forest, F Rousseau, D Reinharz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

39 Citations (Scopus)


In all, 80% of antenatal karyotypes are generated by Down's syndrome screening programmes (DSSP). After a positive screening, women are offered prenatal foetus karyotyping, the gold standard. Reliable molecular methods for rapid aneuploidy diagnosis (RAD: fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and quantitative fluorescence PCR (QF-PCR)) can detect common aneuploidies, and are faster and less expensive than karyotyping. In the UK, RAD is recommended as a standalone approach in DSSP, whereas the US guidelines recommend that RAD be followed up by karyotyping. A cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of RAD in various DSSP is lacking. There is a debate over the significance of chromosome abnormalities (CA) detected with karyotyping but not using RAD. Our objectives were to compare the CE of RAD versus karyotyping, to evaluate the clinically significant missed CA and to determine the impact of detecting the missed CA. We performed computer simulations to compare six screening options followed by FISH, PCR or karyotyping using a population of 110 948 pregnancies. Among the safer screening strategies, the most cost-effective strategy was contingent screening with QF-PCR (CE ratio of $24 084 per Down's syndrome (DS) detected). Using karyotyping, the CE ratio increased to $27 898. QF-PCR missed only six clinically significant CA of which only one was expected to confer a high risk of an abnormal outcome. The incremental CE ratio (ICER) to find the CA missed by RAD was $66 608 per CA. These costs are much higher than those involved for detecting DS cases. As the DSSP are mainly designed for DS detection, it may be relevant to question the additional costs of karyotyping. European Journal of Human Genetics (2011) 19, 3-9; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.138; published online 15 September 2010
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)3-9
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Human Genetics
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Cite this