MOMs (multiples of the median) and DADs (disciminant aneuploidy detection): Improved specificity and cost-effectiveness of biochemial screening for aneuploidy with DADs

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the efficacy of double- and triple-screening paradigms for Down syndrome and to develop a more logical, statistical approach to risk prediction that will decrease the cost of screening and allow the incorporation of new parameters appropriately weighted for their contribution. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 24,504 patients who had biochemical screening for Down syndrome by single (α-fetoprotein), double (α-fetoprotein, β-human chorionic gonadotropin), or triple screening (α-fetoprotein, β-human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol) who had complete outcome information were analyzed by (1) existing guassian-based methods, (2) the Glasgow ratio method, and (3) a new statistical approach (i.e., directly adjusted data sets for discriminant eneuploidy detection [DADs]). RESULTS: By use of individual risk-based thresholds for “at risk” status, both double and triple screening performed far better than single screening, but the percentages of patients at risk varied widely. When the percentages at risk were held constant, the sensitivity of double and triple screenings was similar, suggesting that there are no benefits of using estriol as a third marker. For 25,000 patients the use of only α-fetoprotein and β-human chorionic gonadotropin would save about $500,000, with no decrease in sensitivity. With the DADs approach a statistically sound model giving more stable estimates was developed that permits each factor to be analyzed for its own explained proportion of variance and allows each parameter to have different weighting. For this data set the same sensitivity was seen with, conservative, a 1% reduction in the percentage of patients at risk, which would reduce by 250 the number of amniocenteses, at a further savings of about $400,000. CONCLUSIONS: By use of existing methods, double screening is equally as effective as triple screening, so that the expense of estriol is unnecessary. The DADs approach, by allowing for variable weighting of parameters, lowers the at risk percentage and will permit a much more flexible approach as new parameters become available. Changing to DADs and eliminating estriol should achieve higher specificity for the same sensitivity and save, conservatively, about $900,000 in this series. Extrapolated nationally, if confirmed, the annual savings could approach $72,000,000.