Fetal Soft Markers in Obstetric Ultrasound

        This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


        Objective: To evaluate ultrasound "soft markers" used in fatal genetic screening.
        Options: Ultrasound screening at 16 to 20 weeks is one of the most common genetic screening and (or) diagnostic tests used during pregnancy. The practical concern for ultrasound screening is false-positive and false-negative (missed or not present) results. The use and understanding of ultrasound soft markers and their screening relative risks is an important option in the care of pregnant women. Currently, the presence of a "significant" ultrasound marker adds risk to the likelihood of fatal pathology, but the absence of soft markers, except in controlled situations, should not be used to reduce fatal risk.
        Outcomes: The use of ultrasound in pregnancy has significant health and economic outcomes for families and the health care system, compared with no ultrasound use. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) recommends a single "routine" ultrasound evaluation at 16 to 20 weeks in all pregnancies. Patients need to be counselled about the positive and negative findings that ultrasound may reveal so they are prepared for unexpected pregnancy knowledge and the possibility of further testing options being offered.
        Evidence: Committee members were asked to review specific soft marker ultrasound topics after consensus was reached on the most commonly published soft markers. Medline and PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed English articles published from 1985 to 2003. Reviews of each soft marker topic were written by committee members with quality of evidence and classification of recommendations. These reviews were then circulated and discussed by the combined committee. Final format for the guideline was completed by the committee chairpersons.
        Values: The quality of evidence and classification of recommendations followed discussion and consensus by the combined committees of Diagnostic Imaging and Genetics of the SOGC.
        Benefits, Harms, Costs: It is not possible at this time to determine the benefits, harms, and costs of the guideline because this would require health surveillance and research and health resources not presently available; however, these factors need to be evaluated in a prospective approach by provincial and tertiary initiatives. Consideration of these issues is in the options and outcome section of this abstract.
        • 1. The screening ultrasound at 16 to 20 weeks should evaluate 8 markers, 5 of which (thickened nuchal fold, echogenic bowel, mild ventriculomegaly, echogenic focus in the heart, and choroid plexus cyst) are associated with an increased risk of fetal aneuploidy, and in some cases with nonchromosomal problems, while 3 (single umbilical artery, enlarged cisterna magna, and pyelectasis) are only associated with an increased risk of nonchromosomal abnormalities when seen in isolation (II-2 B).
        • 2. Identification of soft markers for fatal aneuploidy requires correlation with other risk factors, including history, maternal age, and maternal serum testing results (II-1 A).
        • 3. Soft markers identify a significant increase in fatal risk for genetic disease. Timely referral for confirmation, counselling, and investigation is required to maximize management options (III-B).
        Validation: Peer-reviewed guideline development is part of the committee process in addition to SOGC council and editorial review.
        Sponsors: SOGC.


        To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


        1. Periodic health examination, 1992 update: 2. Routine prenatal ultrasound screening. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Can Med J 1992;147(5):627-633.

          • Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
          Guidelines for the performance of ultrasound examination in obstetrics and gynaecology.
          J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can. 1995; 17: 263-266
          • Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
          Obstetric/gynaecologic ultrasound [policy statement].
          J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can. 1997; 65: 871-872
          • Saari-Kemppainen A
          • Karjalainen O
          • Ylostalo P
          • Heinonen OP
          Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial on systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial.
          Lancet. 1990; 336: 387-391
          • Leivo T
          • Tuominen R
          • Saari-Kemppainen A
          • Ylostalo P
          • Karjalainen O
          • Heinonen OP
          Cost-effectiveness of one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial.
          Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 7: 309-314
          • Long G
          • Sprigg A
          A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning.
          J Med Screen. 1998; 5: 6-10
          • Nicolaides KH
          • Snijders RJ
          • Gosden CM
          • Berry C
          • Campbell S
          Ultrasonographically detectable markers of fetal aneuploidy.
          Lancet. 1992; 340: 704-707
          • Bromley B
          • Lieberman E
          • Shipp TD
          • Benacerraf BR
          The genetic sonogram: a method of risk assessment for Dawn syndrome in the second trimester.
          J Ultrasound Med. 2002; 21: 1087-1096
          • Stene J
          • Stene E
          • Mikkelsoen M
          Risk for chromosome abnormality at amniocentesis following a child with a non-inberited chromosome aberration.
          Prenatal Diagn. 1984; 4: 81-95
          • Warburton D
          Genetic Factors Influencing Aneuploidy Frequency.
          in: Dellarco VL Voytek PK Hollaender A Aneuploidy: etiology and mechanisms. Plenum, New York1985: 133-148
          • Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
          Guidelines for health care providers involved in prenatal screening and diagnosis.
          SOGC Clinicat Practice Guidelines. 1998; : 75
          • Dick PT
          Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1. Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Dawn syndrome. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.
          Can Med J. 1996; 154: 465-479
          • Vintzileos A
          • Guzman ER
          • Smulian JC
          • Yeo L
          • Scorza WE
          • Knuppel RA
          Second-rtimester genetic sonography in patients with advanced maternal age and normal triple screen.
          Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99: 993-995
          • DeVore GR
          • Romero R
          Combined use of genetic sonography and maternal serum triple marker screening: an effective method for increasing the detection of trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 years.
          J Ultrasound Med. 2001; 20: 645-654
          • Benn PA
          • Kaminsky LM
          • Ying J
          • Borgida AF
          • Egan JF
          Combined second-trimester biochemical and ultrasound screening for Dawn syndrome.
          Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100: 1168-1176
          • Rabbins JC
          • Lezotre DC
          • Persutte WH
          • DeVore GR
          • Benacerraf BR
          • Nyberg DA
          • et al.
          An 8-center study to evaluate the utility of mid-term genetic sonograms among high-risk pregnancies.
          J Ultrasound Med. 2003; 22: 33-38
          • Verdin SM
          • Economides DL
          The role of ultrasonographic markers for trisomy 21 in women with positive serum biochemistry.
          Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 105: 63-67
          • Drugan A
          • Reichler A
          • Bronstein M
          • Johnson MP
          • Sokol RJ
          • Evan MI
          Abnormal biochemical serum screening versus 2nd rtimester ultrasounddetected minor anomalies as predictors of aneuploidy in low-risk patients.
          Fetal Diagn Ther. 1996; 11: 301-305
          • Woolf SR
          • Battista RN
          • Angerson GM
          • Logan W
          • Eel AG
          Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam. Canadian Communication Group, Ottawa1994