Better Estimation of Spontaneous Preterm Birth Prediction Performance through Improved Gestational Age Dating

被引:5
|
作者
Burchard, Julja [1 ]
Saade, George R. [2 ]
Boggess, Kim A. [3 ]
Markenson, Glenn R. [4 ]
Iams, Jay D. [5 ]
Coonrod, Dean V. [6 ]
Pereira, Leonardo M. [7 ]
Hoffman, Matthew K. [8 ]
Polpitiya, Ashoka D. [1 ]
Treacy, Ryan [1 ]
Fox, Angela C. [1 ]
Randolph, Todd L. [1 ]
Fleischer, Tracey C. [1 ]
Dufford, Max T. [1 ]
Garite, Thomas J. [1 ]
Critchfield, Gregory C. [1 ]
Boniface, J. Jay [1 ]
Kearney, Paul E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Sera Prognost Inc, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 USA
[2] Univ Texas Med Branch, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Galveston, TX 77555 USA
[3] Univ N Carolina, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[4] Boston Univ, Sch Med, Maternal Fetal Med, Boston, MA 02118 USA
[5] Ohio State Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[6] Valleywise Hlth, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Phoenix, AZ 85008 USA
[7] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[8] Christiana Care Hlth Syst, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Newark, DE 19718 USA
关键词
gestational age; gestational age dating; preterm birth; spontaneous preterm birth; proteomic biomarker risk predictor; LAST MENSTRUAL PERIOD; ULTRASOUND; PREGNANCY; VALIDATION; RISK; DATE;
D O I
10.3390/jcm11102885
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The clinical management of pregnancy and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) relies on estimates of gestational age (GA). Our objective was to evaluate the effect of GA dating uncertainty on the observed performance of a validated proteomic biomarker risk predictor, and then to test the generalizability of that effect in a broader range of GA at blood draw. In a secondary analysis of a prospective clinical trial (PAPR; NCT01371019), we compared two GA dating categories: both ultrasound and dating by last menstrual period (LMP) (all subjects) and excluding dating by LMP (excluding LMP). The risk predictor's performance was observed at the validated risk predictor threshold both in weeks 19(1/7)-20(6/7) and extended to weeks 18(0/7)-20(6/7). Strict blinding and independent statistical analyses were employed. The validated biomarker risk predictor showed greater observed sensitivity of 88% at 75% specificity (increases of 17% and 1%) in more reliably dated (excluding-LMP) subjects, relative to all subjects. Excluding dating by LMP significantly improved the sensitivity in weeks 19(1/7)-20(6/7). In the broader blood draw window, the previously validated risk predictor threshold significantly stratified higher and lower risk of sPTB, and the risk predictor again showed significantly greater observed sensitivity in excluding-LMP subjects. These findings have implications for testing the performance of models aimed at predicting PTB.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Recurrent spontaneous preterm birth phenotype and delivery gestational age
    Johnson, Jasmine D.
    Talati, Asha N.
    Honart, Anne W.
    Vladutiu, Catherine J.
    Goodnight, William
    Manuck, Tracy A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 220 (01) : S369 - S370
  • [2] Comparison of first trimester dating methods for gestational age estimation and their implication on preterm birth classification in a North Indian cohort
    Vijayram, Ramya
    Damaraju, Nikhita
    Xavier, Ashley
    Desiraju, Bapu Koundinya
    Thiruvengadam, Ramachandran
    Misra, Sumit
    Chopra, Shilpa
    Khurana, Ashok
    Wadhwa, Nitya
    Rengaswamy, Raghunathan
    Sinha, Himanshu
    Bhatnagar, Shinjini
    BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [3] Comparison of first trimester dating methods for gestational age estimation and their implication on preterm birth classification in a North Indian cohort
    Ramya Vijayram
    Nikhita Damaraju
    Ashley Xavier
    Bapu Koundinya Desiraju
    Ramachandran Thiruvengadam
    Sumit Misra
    Shilpa Chopra
    Ashok Khurana
    Nitya Wadhwa
    Raghunathan Rengaswamy
    Himanshu Sinha
    Shinjini Bhatnagar
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 21
  • [4] Estimating Gestational Age and Prediction of Preterm Birth Using Metabolomics Biomarkers
    Ward, Victoria C.
    Hawken, Steven
    Chakraborty, Pranesh
    Darmstadt, Gary L.
    Wilson, Kumanan
    CLINICS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2024, 51 (02) : 411 - 424
  • [5] Fetal DNA Methylation Associates with Early Spontaneous Preterm Birth and Gestational Age
    Parets, Sasha E.
    Conneely, Karen N.
    Kilaru, Varun
    Fortunato, Stephen J.
    Syed, Tariq Ali
    Saade, George
    Smith, Alicia K.
    Menon, Ramkumar
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (06):
  • [6] Prediction of spontaneous preterm birth: no good test for predicting a spontaneous preterm birth
    Honest, Honest
    Hyde, Chris J.
    Khan, Khalid S.
    CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 24 (06) : 422 - 433
  • [7] The Preterm Prediction Study: Effect of gestational age and cause of preterm birth on subsequent obstetric outcome
    Mercer, BM
    Goldenberg, RL
    Moawad, AH
    Meis, PJ
    Iams, JD
    Das, AF
    Caritis, SN
    Miodovnik, M
    Menard, MK
    Thurnau, GR
    Dombrowski, MP
    Roberts, JM
    McNellis, D
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 181 (05) : 1216 - 1221
  • [8] THE VALIDITY OF GESTATIONAL-AGE ESTIMATION BY MENSTRUAL DATING IN TERM, PRETERM, AND POSTTERM GESTATIONS
    KRAMER, MS
    MCLEAN, FH
    BOYD, ME
    USHER, RH
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1988, 260 (22): : 3306 - 3308
  • [9] Effect of various dating formulae on sonographic estimation of gestational age in extremely preterm infants
    Simic, M.
    Amer-Wahlin, I.
    Marsal, K.
    Kallen, K.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 40 (02) : 179 - 185
  • [10] Large-for-gestational-age fetuses have an increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth
    van Zijl, Maud D.
    Oudijk, Martijn A.
    Ravelli, Anita C. J.
    Mol, Ben W. J.
    Pajkrt, Eva
    Kazemier, Brenda M.
    JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2019, 39 (08) : 1050 - 1056