妊娠晚期双胞胎子痫前期筛查:FMF算法、Roche和Quidel分类的比较性能。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Adeline Walter, Annegret Geipel, Corinna Simonini, Brigitte Strizek, Adi Sharabi-Nov, Nadav Kugler, Ran Svirsky, Jacob Segal, Marina Mor-Shalom, Lea Valinsky, Shaden Naser, Ramzia Abu Hamed, Hamutal Meiri, Howard Cuckle, Ron Maymon
{"title":"妊娠晚期双胞胎子痫前期筛查:FMF算法、Roche和Quidel分类的比较性能。","authors":"Adeline Walter, Annegret Geipel, Corinna Simonini, Brigitte Strizek, Adi Sharabi-Nov, Nadav Kugler, Ran Svirsky, Jacob Segal, Marina Mor-Shalom, Lea Valinsky, Shaden Naser, Ramzia Abu Hamed, Hamutal Meiri, Howard Cuckle, Ron Maymon","doi":"10.1159/000546981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We aimed to compare three preeclampsia screening methods in the third trimester: (a) Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) multi-marker algorithm (maternal factors, biophysical markers, serum placental growth factor [PlGF], and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 [sFLT-1]); (b) Roche triage (sFLT-1/PlGF), on fresh and stored samples; and (c) Quidel triage (PlGF) on stored samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women with two live fetuses were enrolled at a twin clinic at 11-13 weeks' gestation. They visited the clinic every 2-4 weeks until delivery for examination. Blood testing was conducted at enrollment in the first trimester at 11-13 weeks' gestation, and at 20-22 and 32-34 weeks' gestations. Here we evaluated the screening characteristics in the third trimester and the detection rate (DR), false-positive rate (FPR), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and compared the screening efficacy based on recommended cutoffs and area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUROC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Third-trimester analysis included 146 women with twin pregnancies, of which 24 (16.4%) had preeclampsia. Preeclampsia prediction was conducted by three methods. (1) A prospective prediction was conducted on fresh samples using the FMF algorithm risk assessment in the third trimester for twin pregnancies, which had a DR of 79.2% and a FPR of 5.3%, with PPV and NPV of 76.0% and 95.5%, respectively. (2) Roche triage was tested on fresh samples prospectively using soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFLT-1) versus placental growth factor (PlGF), with a cutoff ratio >38, had a DR of 62.5% and a FPR of 22.1%, with PPV and NPV of 37.5% and 90.7%, respectively. In addition, we repeated the testing with Roche's Triage using stored samples and the same sFLT-1/PlGF ratio>38. (3) Quidel triage was performed retrospectively using stored samples, acting according to the definition of high risk according to PlGF <12 pg/mL and medium risk according to PlGF 12-100 pg/mL, and subsequently combined the high and medium risk groups into one. The AUROC for the FMF algorithm was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99), which was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.0001) compared to the Roche triage of fresh samples at 0.74 (0.61-0.84) and stored samples at 0.76 (0.65-0.86). The AUROC for Quidel triage was 0.75 (0.64-0.86).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In twin pregnancy, the third-trimester FMF multi-marker algorithm is more effective for preeclampsia screening than Roche or Quidel triages. It is up to medical centers or professional societies to decide which preeclampsia screening method to adopt, according to local resources. This study describes the strength and limitations of each screening method.</p>","PeriodicalId":12189,"journal":{"name":"Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12503564/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Third-Trimester Screening for Preeclampsia in Twins: Comparative Performance of Fetal Medicine Foundation Algorithm, Roche, and Quidel Triages.\",\"authors\":\"Adeline Walter, Annegret Geipel, Corinna Simonini, Brigitte Strizek, Adi Sharabi-Nov, Nadav Kugler, Ran Svirsky, Jacob Segal, Marina Mor-Shalom, Lea Valinsky, Shaden Naser, Ramzia Abu Hamed, Hamutal Meiri, Howard Cuckle, Ron Maymon\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000546981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We aimed to compare three preeclampsia screening methods in the third trimester: (a) Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) multi-marker algorithm (maternal factors, biophysical markers, serum placental growth factor [PlGF], and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 [sFLT-1]); (b) Roche triage (sFLT-1/PlGF), on fresh and stored samples; and (c) Quidel triage (PlGF) on stored samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women with two live fetuses were enrolled at a twin clinic at 11-13 weeks' gestation. They visited the clinic every 2-4 weeks until delivery for examination. Blood testing was conducted at enrollment in the first trimester at 11-13 weeks' gestation, and at 20-22 and 32-34 weeks' gestations. Here we evaluated the screening characteristics in the third trimester and the detection rate (DR), false-positive rate (FPR), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and compared the screening efficacy based on recommended cutoffs and area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUROC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Third-trimester analysis included 146 women with twin pregnancies, of which 24 (16.4%) had preeclampsia. Preeclampsia prediction was conducted by three methods. (1) A prospective prediction was conducted on fresh samples using the FMF algorithm risk assessment in the third trimester for twin pregnancies, which had a DR of 79.2% and a FPR of 5.3%, with PPV and NPV of 76.0% and 95.5%, respectively. (2) Roche triage was tested on fresh samples prospectively using soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFLT-1) versus placental growth factor (PlGF), with a cutoff ratio >38, had a DR of 62.5% and a FPR of 22.1%, with PPV and NPV of 37.5% and 90.7%, respectively. In addition, we repeated the testing with Roche's Triage using stored samples and the same sFLT-1/PlGF ratio>38. (3) Quidel triage was performed retrospectively using stored samples, acting according to the definition of high risk according to PlGF <12 pg/mL and medium risk according to PlGF 12-100 pg/mL, and subsequently combined the high and medium risk groups into one. The AUROC for the FMF algorithm was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99), which was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.0001) compared to the Roche triage of fresh samples at 0.74 (0.61-0.84) and stored samples at 0.76 (0.65-0.86). The AUROC for Quidel triage was 0.75 (0.64-0.86).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In twin pregnancy, the third-trimester FMF multi-marker algorithm is more effective for preeclampsia screening than Roche or Quidel triages. It is up to medical centers or professional societies to decide which preeclampsia screening method to adopt, according to local resources. This study describes the strength and limitations of each screening method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12503564/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546981\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546981","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的目的是比较三种晚期子痫前期筛查方法:a) FMF多标记算法;(b) Roche分选法(sFLT-1/PlGF),用于新鲜和储存样本;(c)对储存的样品进行Quidel分类(PlGF)。方法:选取妊娠11-13周的2例活胎妇女。她们在分娩前每2-4周到诊所检查一次。分别于妊娠11-13周、20-22周和32-34周进行血液检测。在此,我们评估了妊娠晚期的筛查特征和检出率(DR)、假阳性率(FPR)、阳性预测值和阴性预测值(PPV和NPV),并比较了基于推荐截止点的筛查效果和受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)。结果:本研究纳入146例双胎妊娠妇女,其中24例(16.4%)为先兆子痫。用FMF算法预测双胎妊娠晚期子痫前期的DR=79.2%, FPR=5.3%, PPV=76.0%, NPV=95.5%。罗氏对新鲜样品进行前瞻性分类,使用可溶性膜样酪氨酸激酶-1 (sFLT-1)和胎盘生长因子(PlGF),截止比为bbb38, DR为62.5%,FPR为22.1%,PPV和NPV分别为37.5%和90.7%。罗氏分诊法使用储存的样本进行重复测试,得出了类似的结果。结论:在双胎妊娠中,孕晚期FMF多标记算法比Roche或Quidel分选更有效地筛查子痫前期。根据当地资源,由医疗中心或专业协会决定采用哪种子痫前期筛查方法。本研究描述了每种筛选方法的优点和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Third-Trimester Screening for Preeclampsia in Twins: Comparative Performance of Fetal Medicine Foundation Algorithm, Roche, and Quidel Triages.

Introduction: We aimed to compare three preeclampsia screening methods in the third trimester: (a) Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) multi-marker algorithm (maternal factors, biophysical markers, serum placental growth factor [PlGF], and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 [sFLT-1]); (b) Roche triage (sFLT-1/PlGF), on fresh and stored samples; and (c) Quidel triage (PlGF) on stored samples.

Methods: Women with two live fetuses were enrolled at a twin clinic at 11-13 weeks' gestation. They visited the clinic every 2-4 weeks until delivery for examination. Blood testing was conducted at enrollment in the first trimester at 11-13 weeks' gestation, and at 20-22 and 32-34 weeks' gestations. Here we evaluated the screening characteristics in the third trimester and the detection rate (DR), false-positive rate (FPR), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and compared the screening efficacy based on recommended cutoffs and area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results: Third-trimester analysis included 146 women with twin pregnancies, of which 24 (16.4%) had preeclampsia. Preeclampsia prediction was conducted by three methods. (1) A prospective prediction was conducted on fresh samples using the FMF algorithm risk assessment in the third trimester for twin pregnancies, which had a DR of 79.2% and a FPR of 5.3%, with PPV and NPV of 76.0% and 95.5%, respectively. (2) Roche triage was tested on fresh samples prospectively using soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFLT-1) versus placental growth factor (PlGF), with a cutoff ratio >38, had a DR of 62.5% and a FPR of 22.1%, with PPV and NPV of 37.5% and 90.7%, respectively. In addition, we repeated the testing with Roche's Triage using stored samples and the same sFLT-1/PlGF ratio>38. (3) Quidel triage was performed retrospectively using stored samples, acting according to the definition of high risk according to PlGF <12 pg/mL and medium risk according to PlGF 12-100 pg/mL, and subsequently combined the high and medium risk groups into one. The AUROC for the FMF algorithm was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99), which was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.0001) compared to the Roche triage of fresh samples at 0.74 (0.61-0.84) and stored samples at 0.76 (0.65-0.86). The AUROC for Quidel triage was 0.75 (0.64-0.86).

Conclusions: In twin pregnancy, the third-trimester FMF multi-marker algorithm is more effective for preeclampsia screening than Roche or Quidel triages. It is up to medical centers or professional societies to decide which preeclampsia screening method to adopt, according to local resources. This study describes the strength and limitations of each screening method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
48
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The first journal to focus on the fetus as a patient, ''Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy'' provides a wide range of biomedical specialists with a single source of reports encompassing the common discipline of fetal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信