Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome

Full text

13
Gender Affects Clinical
Suspicion of Down Syndrome
Natalia V. Kovaleva
St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical Academy under
the Federal Agency of Health Care and Social Development
Russian Federation
1. Introduction
It is known that the Down syndrome phenotype can result from a triplication of a small
portion of chromosome 21. In the majority of cases diagnosed as Down syndrome (90%),
free trisomy for chromosome 21 is found; in some 6% of the cases translocations are
observed, and about 3% are mosaics with normal cell line; other aberrations involving
chromosome 21 are rare and found in less than 1% [Mikkelsen, 1988]. In a huge literature on
the epidemiology of Down syndrome, there are two features undoubtedly established, a
strong association of free trisomy 21 frequency with advanced maternal age, and male
prevalence among patients with Down syndrome due to regular trisomy 21.
Generally, the clinical diagnosis is straightforward and well-known to all medical workers
[Mikkelsen, 1988]. However, misdiagnosis (false positive diagnosis) of Down syndrome was
reported in numerous publications [Ahmed et al., 2005; Baccichetti et al., 1990; Ballesta et al.,
1977; Engel et al., 1970; Fried et al., 1980; Hamerton et al., 1965; Melve et al., 2008; Szollar et
al., 1983], being particularly high in neonates [Devlin & Morrison, 2004; Hindley &
Medakkar, 2002]. Factors which alter suspicion of trisomy 21 are known to be early delivery
and prematurity [Mikkelsen, 1988].
Previous studies reported a significant female prevalence among Down syndrome patients
with clinical diagnosis only which suggested that gender also may alter a suspicion of Down
syndrome in infants [Kovaleva et al., 1999; Kovaleva, 2002]. Therefore, the main objectives of
this study were to evaluate a rate of false positive diagnosis of Down syndrome in a large
well-defined geographically population and to determine male-to-female ratio (sex ratio,
SR) among patients with false-positive diagnosis.
2. Materials and methods
St. Petersburg is a large city with a population of about 5 million, and an average of 50 000
births a year. Almost all births take place in a hospital. There is one major clinical genetic
unit in the city which provides the service to the target population, the St. Petersburg Centre
for Medical Genetics. The overwhelming majority of live born babies suspected to have
genetic disease have been examined by clinical geneticists from the Centre within the first
several days after birth and prior to discharge from a hospital. Medical personnel at children
hospitals and special institutions for handicapped children may also call for a clinical

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
204
geneticist for suspected genetic condition. It is mandated that few cases born in private
hospitals and tested cytogenetically elsewhere, must be reported to the Centre. Older
patients or their parents can arrange an appointment to the Centre themselves after being
referred to by medical specialists. Only certified clinical geneticists at St. Petersburg Centre
for Medical Genetics can request karyotyping to confirm or refute a suspected chromosomal
abnormality.
In St. Petersburg, due to global social transition, the birth rate fell dramatically from about
73 thousand in 1987 to 29 thousand in 1999 which caused a decline in the number of live
born patients with Down syndrome over time. Since 2000, the birth rate begun to increase
steadily, reaching more than 50 thousand in 2009. However, at the same time, since 2000, the
impact of prenatal diagnosis on the prevalence of Down syndrome prevalence has been
expanding rapidly, affecting the number of live born babies with Down syndrome.
The completeness of cytogenetic confirmation of trisomy 21 varied significantly, increasing
from 21% in 1970 to almost 100% currently. Therefore, for the sake of sufficient sample size,
the author has chosen for the analysis the period of 1986-2009, when data completeness had
begun improving from 82% in 1986 to about 100% in 1999 and upward.
All cases of Down syndrome delivered during the period January 1, 1986 to December 31,
2009 were abstracted from a population-based registry, the St. Petersburg Down Syndrome
Register, founded and run by the author. The Register has been collecting data on all Down
syndrome patients residing in St. Petersburg, whether diagnosed antenatally or live born
since 1970. The method for data collection has been described elsewhere [Kovaleva et al.,
2001].
Data on patients suspected to have Down syndrome but with a normal karyotype were
retrieved from logbooks of the cytogenetic laboratory at the St. Petersburg Centre for
Medical Genetics and from logbooks of the cytogenetic laboratory at the Leningrad Oblast
Children Hospital which provides service to the regions surrounding St. Petersburg. The
degree of certainty of the Down syndrome diagnosis was determined by presence of
question mark(s) in the records of indication for karyotyping in the logbooks. When the
diagnosis at clinical examination seemed obvious, the question mark was absent. In
doubtful cases, sometimes up to three question marks presented in the record. In some
cases, suspected mosaicism was an indication. The data obtained were analyzed using
standard statistics including binomial test and Chi-square test with Yates correction.
3. Results
Over a period of twenty-four years (from 1.01.1986 to 31.12.2009), 1257 children had been
referred to cytogenetic investigation for either confirmation or exclusion of trisomy 21. The
Down syndrome diagnosis was confirmed in 1129 (89.8%) of them and 120 (9.5%) children
had a normal karyotype. The remaining eight children with another chromosomal
abnormality were excluded from the analysis (Table 1). 1119 cases of trisomy 21 were
diagnosed in the St. Petersburg Centre for Medical Genetics and ten cases were diagnosed
elsewhere. The sex ratio among children with confirmed DS diagnosis was skewed, with a
surplus of males (612 males/517 females, SR=1.18). In contrast, among children with a
normal karyotype, there was a strong female prevalence (25 males/95 females, SR=0.26), the
difference is highly significant, p << 0.0001.
Neonates constituted 94% of patients with confirmed Down syndrome while a proportion of
neonates among those with false positive diagnosis was appreciably smaller (65%).

Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome
205
Therefore a proportion of false positive cases among neonates was 6.8% compared to 35% in
patients aged one month and older (Table 1). The annual rate of false positives among
neonates varied from 0% in 1990, 1995, and in 2000 to 21% in 2008 (Figure 1). There was an
apparent trend with an increase in false positives in relation to a reduction in the number of
cases tested. This variation did not depend on the clinical experience of the referring
doctors. For example, 8 of 9 false positive cases in 2008 were referred to cytogenetic testing
by clinical geneticists whose experience had exceeded 15 years, and the remaining one case
was suspected to have Down syndrome by a clinical geneticist with 7 years of experience.
Age of patients
True Down
syndrome
(trisomy 21)
False positive diagnosis
Total
Normal
karyotype
Other
chromosomal
abnormality
Neonates 1063 77 6
a 1146
Patients under 1 yo 59 20 2b 81
Patients aged 1 yo
and older 7 23 30
Total 1129 120 8 1257
a 46,XY,18p-; 46,XX,t(11;22); 46,X,t(X;16)(p11;q13); 46,XX,r(18); 46,XX, r(18); 47,XXX
b 46,XY,add(10)(q26); 46,XX,inv(22)(p13;q12)
Table 1. Proportion of false positive diagnosis according to the patients' age at cytogenetic
examination
Among false positive neonates, there was a very strong female prevalence, with 11 males/
66 females, SR=0.17. Notable female predominance was also found in both patients aged
under 1 year old (7 males/13 females, SR=0.54) and in older patients (7 males/16 females,
SR=0.44).
Further analysis was performed regardless of the date and place of birth of the patients.
Overall, a normal karyotype was diagnosed in 103 neonates (17 males/86 females, SR = 0.20,
different from population value of 1.06, p < 0.0001), in 68 children of the age group up to 1
year old (24M/44 females, SR = 0.55, p = 0.0052), and in 64 children aged 1 year and older
(29M/35 females, SR = 0.83, p > 0.05).
Data on the level of certainty in false positives cases is presented in Table 2. The diagnosis at
clinical examination seemed obvious in 22% of neonates and in only 6% of children 1 year
and older. In two cases, since features of Down syndrome were obvious, chromosome
testing was requested twice. The proportion of suggested mosaicism was increased with the
patients’ age, from 3% in neonates to about 10% in the oldest group of patients. Request for
excluding Down syndrome was noted in two cases only. Unquestionable Down syndrome
diagnosis was stated in 20% and mosaicism was suspected in about 9% of males, while in
females these figures were 14% and 4% correspondingly (Table 3).

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
206
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Calenda r years
Number
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Proportion, %
Fig. 1. Total number of cytogenetically tested cases (red line) and proportion of cases with
false positive diagnosis (blue line).
Expression of certainty
Patients with false positive diagnosis of Down syndrome
Neonates Under 1 yo 1 yo and older Total
Down syndrome 22 (22%) 11 (16%) 4 (6%) 37
Mosaicism? 3 (3%) 3 (4.5%) 6 (9.5%) 12
Down syndrome? 60 (58%) 51 (75%) 53 (83%) 164
Down syndrome?? 14 (14%) 2 (3%) 1 (1.5%) 17
Down syndrome??? 2 (2%) 1 (1.5%) 3
Request for excluding
Down syndrome 2 (2%) 2
Total 103 68 64 235
Table 2. Degree of certainty in requesting for cytogenetic testing according to the age of the
patients

Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome
207
Expression of certainty
Patients with false positive diagnosis of Down
syndrome
Males Females Total
Down syndrome 14 (20%) 23 (14%) 37
Mosaicism? 6 (8.5%) 6 (4%) 12
Down syndrome? 47 (67%) 117 (71%) 164
Down syndrome?? 2 (3%) 15 (4%) 17
Down syndrome??? 1 (1.5%) 2 (1%) 3
Request for excluding Down
syndrome 0 2 (1%) 2
Total 70 165 235
Table 3. Degree of certainty in requesting for cytogenetic testing according to the gender of
patients with false positive diagnosis
Data on distribution of both true Down syndrome patients and false positives by maternal
age is presented in Table 4. The analysis of maternal age distribution in false positive
patients was complicated since maternal ages were available in only a small proportion of
the sample. There is some increase (13%) in the proportion of mothers aged 35 years old and
older compared to general population (6% to 9%), due to a higher proportion (23.5%) of
mothers of advantaged ages in the group of patients 1 year old and older. The overall figure
of 13% in false positives is significantly lower compared to about 33% in true Down
syndrome (p = 0.0003).
Maternal
age
Down
syndrome
Patients with false positive diagnosis of Down syndrome
Neonates Under 1 yo 1 yo and
older Total
< 20 87 6 3 1 10
20-24 378 6 7 5 18
25-29 367 15 3 5 23
30-34 324 10 4 2 16
35-39 352
33%
2
7.5%
2
15%
3
23.5%
7
13%
40+ 213 1 1 1 3
Total 1721 40 20 17 77
Table 4. Maternal ages in Down syndrome and in false positive diagnosis, 1970-2009

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
208
4. Discussion
4.1 Proportion of false positive cases
Over the study period, 1129 postnatal cases of Down syndrome were identified. Regular
trisomy 21 was observed in 90.9%, translocation trisomy in 5.4%, and mosaicism in 3.7% of
the cases. These figures are in accordance with previous data worldwide. One hundred-
twenty cases, referred for cytogenetic examination for suspicion of Down syndrome,
displayed a normal karyotype, while eight children were diagnosed with another
chromosome abnormality. Therefore, the proportion of misdiagnosed cases was 10.2%
(128/1129). Analysis of the literature (Table 5) showed these data to be in agreement with
majority of previous studies. Data from Spain [Ballesta et al., 1997] is of particular interest
regarding the object of the present publication. The authors performed rigorous clinical
screening of patients with suspected Down syndrome followed by cytogenetic testing.
Eleven of 71 (15.5%) patients with psychomotor delay and features of Down syndrome were
found to have a normal karyotype. On subsequent fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH)
testing, only one of them had triplication of the Down syndrome region on FISH testing.
When neonates were analyzed separately, the false positive rate has improved up to 7.2%.
Among publications where data on accuracy of Down syndrome diagnosis can be found
there are some reporting on the prevalence of false positive diagnosis in neonates [Devlin &
Morrison, 2004; Fried, 1980; Hall, 1964; Hindley & Medakkar, 2002; Melve et al., 2008;
Sivakumar & Larkins, 2004]. The rate of false positives in our sample appeared to be the
lowest, being closer to figure of 9.6% in Norway [Melve et al., 2008]. Annual rate of false
positive diagnosis varied significantly, from 0% in 1990, 1995, and in 2000 to 21% (9 of 42) in
2001 (Figure 1). Obviously this variation did not depend on the clinical experience of the
referring doctors. Similar figures were reported by Melve et al. [2008], the highest annual
number of false positives in neonates was 18 (18.9%) and the lowest was 4 (4.8%).
False positive diagnosis implies a great undue mental stress for parents, therefore maximizing
clinical diagnostic accuracy is of importance [Hindley & Medakkar, 2002]. Significance of
expert clinical assessment of a patient before cytogenetic testing was explored by Sivakumar &
Larkins [2004]. They reported a more favorable accuracy rate from Birmingham Women’s
Hospital (25 of 29 suspected cases had trisomy 21) compared to the West Midland region (false
positive rate 14% and 36%, correspondingly). “This can be explained by the fact that the
tertiary hospital may have more experienced neonatologists compared to the broad cohort of
junior and senior pediatricians… We believe that an assessment by a senior pediatrician before
testing may minimize the risk of negative results.”[Sivakumar & Larkins, 2004]. The data from
the present study, that is a low false positive rate as the result of expert clinical assessment by
clinical geneticists, support this suggestion.
4.2 Degree of certainty about the diagnosis of Down syndrome
4.2.1 Degree of certainty about the diagnosis of Down syndrome in false positive
cases
Despite the widely held belief that the clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome is very obvious,
some publications report on difficulties of clinical judgment arising in the neonatal period
[Druce et al., 1995; Fried, 1980; Hall, 1966; Hindley & Medakkar, 2002; Lee et al., 1961].
Factors which alter suspicion of Down syndrome are known to be early delivery and
prematurity [Mikkelsen, 1988]. No data on sex difference in suspicion of Down syndrome or
in degree of certainty of DS diagnosis were reported before.

Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome
209
Source Country
Study
period Age of patients
Number
of tested
patients
Proportion of
false positive
diagnosis
Hamerton
et al, 1965 UK 1960-1964 not specified 173 16 (9%)
Engel
et al., 1970 Germany 1963-1968 various ages 365 6 (15%)
Johnson
et al., 1985
Ohio, USA 1970-1981 various ages 769 a 48 (6%)
New York,
USA 1980-1983 various ages 126
b 10 (8%) c
Szollar
et al., 1983 Hungary 1970-1979
under 1 yo 214 16 (7.5%)
1 yo and older 85 3 (3.5%)
Czeizel,
1988 Hungary 1973-1982 various ages 81 4 (5%)
Baccichetti
et al., 1990 Italy 1988
teenagers and
adults
predominantly
116 14 (12%)
Ballesta
et al., 1997 Spain not
specified not neonates 71 11 (15.5%) d
Ahmed
et al., 2005 Pakistan 1998-2001 various ages 325 30 (9%) e
a,b cytogenetic confirmation in about 77% of the patients; c including one case with trisomy 18; d FISH
study of 11 cases detected a partial trisomy 21 in one case; e including 12 cases with other chromosomal
anomalies
Table 5. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome in patients of various ages
Data presented in Table 2 suggests that the level of certainty in false positives cases was
comparably low, decreasing with the patients’ age. The diagnosis at clinical examination
seemed obvious in 22% of neonates and in only 6% of children 1 year and older. However a
proportion of clinical diagnosis suggestive of mosaicism increased with the patients’ age,
from 3% in neonates to about 10% in the oldest group of patients. Surprisingly, despite a
strong prevalence of females among false positive children, a higher level of certainty of
Down syndrome diagnosis was given to male patients (Table 3). In males, unquestionable
Down syndrome or suspected mosaicism were indications for cytogenetic testing in 20%
and in 8.5 %of the cases, while in females these figures were 14% and 4% respectively.
4.2.2 Degree of certainty about the diagnosis of Down syndrome in confirmed cases
The data reported above prompted the author to taking a quick look at degree of certainty of
the clinical diagnosis in the cases of true Down syndrome. It was found that 17 of 106 (16%)
neonates with Down syndrome born during 2007-2009 had a questionable clinical diagnosis
(including one diagnose accompanied with three question marks), among them there were 8
males and 9 females. Thus, at least in neonates with Down syndrome, there was no
association of clinical suspicion of the diagnosis with the gender of the patient.

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
210
Source Geographic
area Study period Number of
tested patients
Proportion of
false positive
diagnosis
Hall, 1964 Sweden 1961-1962 43 5 (11.6%)
Fried, 1980 Israel 1973-1977 30 4 (13.3%)
Hidley, & Medakkar,
2002 UK 1999-2000 962 307 (32%)
a
Devlin & Morrison,
2004
Northern
Ireland 1969-2001 268
d 82 (31%)
b
Sivakumar & Larkins,
2004 UK 2000-2002 233 85 (36%)
Melve et al., 2008 Norway 2001-2005 376 36 (9.6%)
Present study Russia 1986-2009 1146 83 (7.2%) c
a including one case with 49,XXXXY; b including 5 females with another chromosomal abnormality; c
including 2 males and 6 females with another chromosomal abnormality; a neonates constitute 90% of
the patients
Table 6. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome in neonates
4.3 Sex ratio in Down syndrome
4.3.1 Sex ratio in cases considered or proved to be true Down syndrome
Sex ratio in true Down syndrome is well known to be skewed towards males [Mikkelsen,
1988; Mutton et al., 1996]. Meta-analysis of publications reporting cytogenetic profile of
Down syndrome worldwide [Kovaleva, 2002] showed typical male prevalence (SR ~1.3)
among both patients with regular trisomy 21 and carriers of translocation trisomy 21, either
sporadic or inherited. The only exception is mosaic variant of trisomy, where some
prevalence of females was documented (SR~0.96).
Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the skewed sex ratio in Down
syndrome. Meiotic disturbance (non-homologous co-orientation in male meiosis) [Kovaleva,
1992; Petersen et al. 1993], fertilization event (greater accessibility of Y-bearing sperm to ova
disomic for chromosome 21 or promotion of non-disjunction in the ova by Y-bearing sperm)
[Ferguson-Smith & Yates, 1984; Kovaleva & Mutton, 2005], and post-fertilization events
(intrauterine selection against females) [Huether et al., 1996; Hook et al., 1999] have been
discussed. Data from recent studies supports suggestion that male excess among live born
with non mosaic trisomy 21 might be due to selection against female fetuses [Oliver et al.,
2009; Kovaleva, 2010]. Female prevalence among carriers of mosaic trisomy was suggested
to be a result of sex-specific chromosome loss in early embryogenesis [Kovaleva, 2005].
The trigger of the present study was an observation of an intriguing dynamics of sex ratio in
Down syndrome in St. Petersburg (former Leningrad) within period of 1970-1996 [Kovaleva
et al., 1999] subsequently confirmed by the meta analysis of the literature [Kovaleva, 2002].
It was a steady increase in sex ratio from a population figure of 1.05 or even less in the
earliest studies in 1940’s to 1.3 - 1.6 in the studies conducted during late 1980’s (Figure 2).
Analysis showed that this increase was accounted for by the growing use of karyotyping to

Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome
211
confirm the diagnosis. Among individuals with a clinical diagnosis only, sex ratio was 0.97
(1160 males/1198 females) [Collman & Stoller, 1962; Davidenkova et al., 1965; Huether,
1990; Kovaleva et al., 2001; Staples et al., 1991] while among individuals with confirmed
trisomy 21 this figure was 1.31 (1918 males/1466 females) [Huether, 1990; Kovaleva et al.,
2001; Mikkelsen et al., 1976; Mikkelsen et al., 1990; Sharav, 1991; Staples et al., 1991; Stoll et
al., 1990; Wahrman & Fried, 1970]. Correspondingly, in samples where proportion of clinical
diagnosis only was 30% and more, intermediate figure of 1.12 (1950 males/1742 females)
[Baird & Sadovnik, 1987; Christoderescu et al., 1977; Johnson et al., 1996; Kallen et al., 1996;
Kovaleva et al., 2001; Staples et al., 1991] was observed. These observations raised a
suggestion that low sex ratio in Down syndrome patients with clinical diagnosis only might
be accounted by a large proportion of false positive diagnosis in females [Kovaleva, 2002].
0,75
0,85
0,95
1,05
1,15
1,25
1,35
1,45
1,55
1,65
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Calendar years
Sex ratio
Fig. 2. Sex ratio in Down syndrome, data from epidemiological studies worldwide (adapted
from Kovaleva [2002]). Red line: clinical diagnosis only; black line: clinical diagnosis or
trisomy 21, green line: trisomy 21
4.3.2 Sex ratio in false positive diagnosis
Though theoretically, misdiagnosis should occur uniformly in both sexes, data from the
present study demonstrates a significant female prevalence among false positive patients. In
neonates, a five-fold prevalence of females over males was detected (17 males/86 females,
SR = 0.20, different from population value of 1.06, p < 0.0001). Female excess diminished
with older children; two-fold prevalence was found among children of the age up to 1 year

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
212
old (24 males/44 females, SR = 0.55, p = 0.0052), and notable but statistically insignificant
prevalence among patients aged 1 year and older (29 males/35 females, SR = 0.83, p > 0.05).
Therefore, data from the present study supports the suggestion of low sex ratio in Down
syndrome patients with clinical diagnosis only as the result of a large proportion of false
positive diagnosis in females. However the reason of female predominance among the
clinically suspected Down syndrome remains unclear.
Patients with clinical features of Down syndrome but without trisomy 21 were reported
occasionally before the advent of molecular technologies allowing definite detection of
Down syndrome critical region located at chromosome 21 [Hall, 1961; Hamerton & Polani,
1962; Bowen et al., 1974]. As an explanation for absence of trisomy 21 in different tissues
of patients with apparent manifestations of the syndrome, several suggestions were
proposed: (1) low-level mosaicism, (2) the presence of the trisomic cell line in tissues other
than those investigated, (3) elimination of the aberrant cell line in vivo or selective regress
in vitro [Engel et al., 1970], and (4) gene mutation that might cause a “phenocopy” [Hall,
1962].
Subsequent studies showed the presence of a cryptic duplication of the Down syndrome
critical region in individuals with clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome and an apparently
normal karyotype [see for reference Forster-Gibson et al., 2001]. However several patients
with mental retardation and Down syndrome phenotype, but without molecularly
detectable duplication of the critical region, have been reported [McCormick et al., 1989;
Ahlbom et al., 1996]. The majority of them were females. For example, a woman with
clinically typical Down syndrome but apparently normal chromosomes, was extensively
examined for the presence of any partial trisomy for any segment of chromosome 21. Since
the proposita’s parents were half-sibs, and her sister suffered from the same disorder as the
proposita, the authors suggested an autosomal recessive disorder which is phenotypically
indistinguishable from Down syndrome [Ahlbom et al., 1996]. As it was mentioned above,
FISH testing of 11 patients with developmental delay and clinically obvious Down
syndrome revealed only one of them who had triplication of the critical Down syndrome
region. Unfortunately the gender of the patients was not reported [Ballesta et al., 1997].
The data obtained in the present study suggest that gender in particularly significantly
affects clinical suspicion of Down syndrome in neonates. Since characteristic features
allowing suspicion of Down syndrome include facial dysmorphisms, one may hypothesize
sex differences in the normal process of facial cranium ontogenesis during perinatal period.
In patients aged one year and older, sex ratio (0.83) appeared to be close to sex ratio typical
to carriers of mosaic trisomy 21 (0.96). In this group, proportion of mothers of advanced age
seemed to be increased which might support a suggestion of undetected mosaicism in some
of these patients. An abnormal condition(s) specific to females might also be implicated in a
proportion of the misdiagnosed cases.
4.4 Implications of false positive-female-prevalence-phenomenon to Down syndrome
epidemiology
The observation of female prevalence in false positive clinically diagnosed cases allows an
insight into the ground for reported sex ratio variability in Down syndrome. For example,
the ECLAM (Estudio Colaborativo Latinoamericano de Malformaciones Congenitas) group
reported as “an unusual finding” a markedly low sex ratio (0.98) found in 3,157 newborn
Down syndrome patients in South America populations [Carothers et al., 2001]. Only 13% of
the patients were reported to have confirmed diagnosis, therefore, in the light of the data

Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome
213
presented in this paper, a low sex ratio among patients mostly clinically diagnosed as Down
syndrome, is a well expected finding.
Moreover, based on data on sex ratio in both all clinically diagnosed cases and true Down
syndrome cases in a population where sufficient completeness of cytogenetic confirmation is
not readily achievable, it is realizable to calculate a crude rate of false positives [Kovaleva,
2002]. For example, assuming all males among clinically diagnosed cases in ECLAM’s
sample to be true Down syndrome (which can not be absolutely correct since some false
positive cases might be found among males) and typical for Down syndrome sex ratio to be
1.3, for 1563 males, 1203 females (not 1594) are expected, with odd number of 391 females.
Resulted proportion of misdiagnosed cases is 391/3,157=12%.
The results from the present study might have some further implications. (1) Overestimation
of maternal age-specific rates due to false positive cases, in young women predominantly,
might take place in the early years of monitoring of Down syndrome, as well as in
populations with a high proportion of unconfirmed cases (those covered by Chernobyl
fallout in the Former Soviet Republics). (2) It was generally accepted that maternal age
specific risks were stable over time, and variations in population rates were explained by
changing in maternal age composition [Huether et al., 1998; Carothers et al., 2001]. However
if age-specific rates stay stable over long time, irrespective of increase in proportion of
confirmed cases, it might indicate an increase in real rates. (3) The results from this study
would suggest that the use of epidemiological data collected on Down syndrome prior to
routine cytogenetic analysis, should be reconsidered in meta-analyses of Down syndrome
population data.
5. Conclusion
The present study is the largest study to address the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of Down
syndrome and the first one demonstrating that gender may affect a clinical suspicion of a
chromosomal disease. The advantages of this study are well-defined geographical
population, clinical screening of the cases suspected to have a chromosomal disease by
experienced clinical geneticists prior to requesting for cytogenetic testing, a high
completeness of cytogenetic confirmation of the Down syndrome diagnosis, and perfect
recording of the cases on logbooks of the cytogenetic laboratory at the St. Petersburg Centre
for Medical Genetics. Apparent limitations of this study are a lack of detailed clinical
description of the cases and absence of follow-up. Additional studies, both clinical and
genetic, would be reasonable for uncovering mechanism(s) responsible for the remarkable
sex bias in clinical suspicion of Down syndrome.
6. Acknowledgment
The author’s greatest thanks belong to Prof. Virginia C. Thurston (Indiana University School
of Medicine) for helpful comments and amending the English in this paper.
7. References
Ahmed, I.; Ghafoor, T.; Samore, N.A. & Chattha M.N. (2005). Down syndrome: clinical and
cytogenetic analysis. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons—Pakistan, Vol.
15, No.7 (July 2005), pp. 426-429, ISSN 1022-386X

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
214
Baccichetti, C.; Lenzini, E. & Pegoraro, R. (1990). Down syndrome in the Belluno district
(Veneto Region, northeast Italy): age distribution and morbidity. American Journal of
Medical Genetics. Supplement, No. 7, (n.d.), pp. 84-86, ISSN 1040-3787
Baird, P.A. & Sadovnick, A.D. (1987). Life expectancy in Down syndrome. The Journal of
Pediatrics, Vol. 110, No.6, (June 1987), pp. 849-854, ISSN 0022-3476
Ballesta, F.; Antich, J.; Aledo, R.; Milả, M.; Sanchez, A. & Moreno, J. (1997). Down syndrome:
genotype-phenotype correlation in 71 patients. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics, Vol.77,
Suppl. 1, (June 1997), p. 6, ISSN 0011-4537
Bowen, P.; Chernick, B.C.; Campbell, D.J. & Rouget, A. (1974). Mild characteristic of Down
syndrome with normal karyotype in cultured lymphocytes and skin fibroblasts.
Birth Defects Original Articles Series, Vol.10, No.10, pp. 43-48, ISSN 0547-6844
Carothers, A.D.; Castilla, E.E.; Dutra, M.G. & Hook, E.B. (2001). Search for ethnic,
geographic, and other factors in the epidemiology of Down syndrome in South
America: Analysis of data from the ECLAMC Project, 1967-1997. American Journal of
Medical Genetics, Vol.103, No.2, (October 2001), pp. 149-156, ISSN 1040-3787
Christoderescu, D.; Berbescu, C.; Retereanu, A.; Constantinescu, E.; Ciupitu, A.; Urse M. &
Radu M. (1977). The incidence of Down's syndrome in Bucharest. A retrospective
survey. Revue roumaine de medicine. Neurologie et psychiatrie. Vol.15, No.2, (April-
June 1977), pp.147-154, ISSN 0377-502X
Collman, R.D. & Stoller, A. (1962). A survey of mongoloid births in Victoria, Australia, 1942-
1957. American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health, Vol.52, May 1962, pp.
813-829, ISSN 0002-9572
Czeizel, E. (1988). Some epidemiological characteristics of Down’s syndrome in Hungary.
Acta morphologica Hungarica, Vol.36, No.1-2, pp. 63-77, ISSN 0236-5391
Davidenkova, E.F.; Shtilbans, I.I. & Verlinskaia, D.K. (1965). Some data on 181 newborn
infants with Down’s disease. Pediatriia, Vol.44, February 1965, pp. 67-72, ISSN 0031-
403X
Devlin, L. & Morrison, P.J. (2004). Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome. The
Ulster Medical Journal, Vol. 73, No.1, (May 2004), pp. 4-12, ISSN 041-6193
Druce, M.; Cohen, I.J.; Naor, N. & Shohat, M. (1995). Late diagnosis of Down syndrome due
to incorrect cytogenetic diagnosis and extreme prematurity. Clinical Genetics,
Vol.48, No. 4, (October 1995), pp. 192-194, ISSN 0009-9163
Engel, W.; Reinwein, H.; Müller, I. & Kunze, G. (1970). Chromosomenbefunde bei 365
patienten mit Down-syndrome oder Verdacht auf Down-syndrome. Humangenetik,
Vol.8, No.4, (March 1970), pp. 307-311, ISSN 0018-7348
Ferguson-Smith, M.A. & Yates, J.R.W. (1984). Maternal age-specific rates for chromosome
aberrations and factors influencing them: report of a collaborative European study
on 52 965 amniocenteses. Prenatal Diagnosis, Vol.4, Special No, (Spring 1984), pp. 5-
45, ISSN 0197-3851
Forster-Gibson, C.J.; Davies, J.; MacKenzie, J.J. & Harrison, K. (2001). Cryptic duplication of
21q in an individual with a clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome. Clinical Genetics,
Vol.59, No.6, (June 2001), pp. 438-443, ISSN 0009-9163
Hall, B. (1962). Down’s syndrome (mongolism) with normal chromosomes. Lancet, Vol. 2,
November 17, pp. 1026-1027, ISSN 0140-6736
Hall, B. (1964). Mongolism in newborns. A clinical and cytogenetic study. Acta Paediatrica
Scandinavica. Supplementum, No.154, (n.d.), pp. 1-95
Hamerton, J.L. & Polani, P.E. (1962). Down’s syndrome (mongolism) with normal
chromosomes. Lancet, Vol.2, December 8, p. 1229, ISSN 0140-6736

Gender Affects Clinical Suspicion of Down Syndrome
215
Hamerton, J.L.; Gianelli, F. & Polani, P.E. (1965). Cytogenetics of Down’s syndrome
(Mongolosm) I. Data on consecutive series of patients referred for genetic counseling
and diagnosis. Cytogenetics, Vol.4, No.3, (n.d.), pp. 171-185, ISSN 0011-4537
Hindley, D. & Medakkar, S. (2002). Diagnosis of Down’s syndrome in neonates. Archives of
Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition, Vol.87, No. 3, (November 2002), pp.
F220-F221, ISSN 1359-2998
Hook, E.B.; Cross, P.K. & Mutton, D.E. (1999). Female predominance (low sex ratio) in
47,+21 mosaics. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Vol.84, No.4, (June 1999), pp.
316-319, ISSN 1040-3787
Huether, C.A. (1990). Epidemiological aspects of Down syndrome: sex ratio, incidence, and
recent impact of prenatal diagnosis. Issues and Reviews in Teratology. Vol.5, (n.d.),
pp. 283-316, ISSN 0740-8242
Huether, C.A.; Martin, R.L.M.; Stoppelman, S.M.; D'Souza, S.; Bishop, J.K.; Torfs, C.P.;
Lorey, F.; May, K.M.; Hanna, J.S.; Baird, P.A. & Kelley, J.C. (1996). Sex ratio in
fetuses and live born infants with autosomal aneuploidy. American Journal of
Medical Genetics, Vol.63, No.3, (June 1996), pp. 492-500, ISSN 1040-3787
Huether, C.A.; Ivanovich, J.; Goodwin, B.S.; Krivchenia, E.L.; Hertzberg, V.; Edmonds, L.D.;
May, D.S. & Priest, J.H. (1998). Maternal age specific risk rate estimates for Down
syndrome among live births in whites and other races from Ohio and Metropolitan
Atlanta, 1970-1989. Journal of Medical Genetics, Vol.35, No.6, (June 1998), pp. 482-490,
ISSN 0022-2593
Johnson, K.M.; Huether, C.A.; Hook, E.B., Crowe, C.A.; Reeder, B.A.; Sommer, A.;
McCorquodale, M.M. & Cross, P.K. (1985). False positive reporting of Down
syndrome on Ohio and New York birth certificates. Genetic Epidemiology, Vol.2,
No.2, (n.d.), pp. 123-131, ISSN 0741-0395
Johnson, Z.; Lillis, D.; Delany, V.; Hayes, C. & Dack, P. (1996) The epidemiology of Down
syndrome in four counties in Ireland 1981-90. Journal of Public Health Medicine,
Vol.18, No.1, (March 1996), pp.78-86, ISSN 0957-4832
Kallen, B.; Mastroiacovo, P. & Robert, E. (1996). Major congenital malformations in Down
syndrome American Journal of Medical Genetics, Vol.65, No.2, (October 1996), pp. 160-
166, ISSN 1040-3787.
Kovaleva, N.V. (1992). Distributive pairing and aneuploidy in man. Genetika, Vol.28, No.10,
(n.d.), pp. 5-15, ISSN 0016-1993
Kovaleva, N.V. (2002). Sex ratio in Down syndrome. A review. Tsitol Genet, Vol.36, No.6,
(November-December 2002), pp. 54-69, ISSN 0563-3783
Kovaleva, N.V. (2005). Sex-specific instability in early human development. American Journal
of Medical Genetics, Vol.136A, No.1, (April 2005), pp. 401-413, ISSN 1040-3787
Kovaleva, N.V. (2010, March 18). Germ-line transmission of trisomy 21: data from 80
families suggest an implication of grandmaternal age and a high frequency of
female-specific rescue. Molecular Cytogenetics, BioMed Central, Retrieved from
http://www.molecularcytogenetics.org/content/3/1/7
Kovaleva, N.V.; Butomo, I.V.; Verlinskaya, D.K.; Ilyashenko, N.Y.; Pantova, I.G.; Prozorova,
M.V.; Khitrikova, L.E. & Shandlorenko, S.K. (1999). Karyological characterization of
Down syndrome: clinical and theoretical aspects. Tsitologiia, Vol.41, No.12, (n.d.),
pp. 1015-1021, ISSN 0041-3771
Kovaleva, N.V.; Butomo, I.V. & Körblein, A. (2001). Sex ratio in Down syndrome. Studies on
patients with confirmed trisomy 21. Tsitologiia i Genetica, Vol.36, No.6, (November-
December 2001), pp. 43-49, ISSN 0564-3783

Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening for Down Syndrome
216
Kovaleva, N.V. & Mutton, D.E. (2005). Epidemiology of double aneuploidies involving
chromosome 21 and sex chromosomes. American Journal of Medical Jenetics,
Vol.134A, No.4, (August 2005), pp. 24-32, ISSN 1040-3787
Lee, C.H.; Schmid, W. & Smith, P.M. (1961). Definitive diagnosis of mongolism in newborn
infants by chromosome studies. JAMA, Vol.178, December 9, (December 1961), pp.
1030-1032, ISSN 0098-7484
Melve, K.K.; Lie, R.T.; Skjaerven, R.; Van Der Hagen, C.B.; Gradek, G.A.; Jonsrud, C.;
Braathen, G.J. & Irgens, L.M. (2008). Registration of Down syndrome in the Medical
Birth Registry of Norway: validity and time trends. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica
Scandinavica, Vol.87, No.8, (n.d.), pp. 824-830, ISSN 0001-6349
McCormick, M.K.; Schinzel, A.; Petersen, M.B.; Stetten, G.; Driscoll, D.J.; Cantu, E.S.;
Tranebjaerg, L.; Mikkelsen, M.; Watkins, P.C. & Antonarakis, S.E. (1989). Molecular
genetic approach to the characterization of the “Down syndrome region” of
chromosome 21. Genomics, Vol.5, No. 2, (August 1989), pp. 325-331, ISSN 0888-7543
Mikkelsen, M.; Fischer, G.; Stene, J.; Stene, E. & Petersen, E. (1976). Incidence study of Down's
syndrome in Copenhagen, 1960-1971: with chromosome investigation. Annals of
Human Genetics, Vol.40, No.2, (November 1976), pp.177-182, ISSN 0003-4800
Mikkelsen, M. (1988). The incidence of Down's syndrome and progress towards its
reduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Biological Sciences, Vol.319,
No.1194, (June 1988), pp. 315-324, ISSN 0962-8436
Mikkelsen, M.; Poulsen, H. & Nielsen, K.G. (1990). Incidence, survival, and mortality in
Down syndrome in Denmark. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Supplement, No.
7, (n.d.), pp. 75-78, ISSN 1040-3787
Mutton, D.; Alberman, E. & Hook, E.B. (1996). Cytogenetic and epidemiological findings in
Down syndrome, England and Wales 1989 to 1993. Journal of Medical Genetics,
Vol.33, No.3, (May 1996), pp. 387-394, ISSN 0022-2593
Oliver, T.R.; Bhise, A.; Feingold, E.; Tinker, S.; Masse, N. & Sherman, S.L. (2009). Investigation of
factors associated with paternal non disjunction of chromosome 21. American Journal of
Medical Genetics, Vol.149A, No.8, (August 2009), pp. 1685-1690, ISSN 1040-3787
Petersen, M.B.; Antonarakis, S.E.; Hassold, T.J.; Freeman, S.B.; Sherman, S.L.;
Avramopoulos, D. & Mikkelsen, M. (1993). Paternal non disjunction in trisomy 21:
excess of male patients. Human Molecular Genetics, Vol.2, No.10, (October 1993), pp.
1691-1695, ISSN 0964-6906
Sharav, T. (1991). Aging gametes in relation to incidence, gender, and twinning in Down
syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Vol.39, No.1, (April 1991), pp.116-
118, ISSN 1040-3787
Sivakumar, S. & Larkins, S. (2004). Accuracy of clinical diagnosis in Down’s syndrome.
Archives of Diseases in Childhood. Vol.89, No.7, (July 2004), p. 691, ISSN 0003-9888
Staples, A.J.; Sutherland, G.R.; Haan, E.A. & Clisby, S. (1991). Epidemiology of Down
syndrome in South Australia (1960-89). American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol.49,
No.5, (November 1991), pp.1014-1024, ISSN 0002-9297
Stoll, C.; Alembik, Y.; Dott, B. & Roth, M.P. (1990). Epidemiology of Down syndrome in 118,
265 consecutive births. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Supplement, No. 7, (n.d.),
pp. 79-83, ISSN 1040-3787
Szollar, J.; Osztovics, M.; Pazonyi, I. & Balogh, L. (1983). The frequency of Down syndrome in a
Budapest study during 1970-1979. Clinical Genetics, Vol. 23, No.3, p. A249, ISSN 0009-9163
Wahrman, J. & Fried, K. (1970) The Jerusalem prospective newborn survey of mongolism.
Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Vol.171, No.2, (October 1970), pp. 341-360,
ISSN 0077-8923