Downs risk and gender? Post your screening results

[Mamabear12]

I am curious if the gender of your baby effects your screening results? For instance for my first pregnancy, I had a baby girl and my screening was low risk at 1:53,000. However, my friend who is about ten years older, had a low risk of 1:85,000. I thought that was strange since she is a few years older. But she had a boy. Now for my second I suspect I'm having a boy and just received my results, low risk and 1:93,000. Which makes me wonder. R u more likely to have less risk if your having a boy? Bc now that Bc this pregnancy is not even lower risk then my first and I'm a couple years older.

Could you please post what ur screening results are and gender of baby?

Dd 1:29,000
Ds 1:3

Both chromosomally normal.

DD1: 1 in 8,000
DD2: 1 in 180 (born chromosomally normal)
DS: 1 in 10 (not due for two more weeks and we declined amnio so we do not know whether he has Downs).

With DD2 and DS my high risk results were entirely due to the thickness of the nuchal fold in comparison to the shortness of the crown to rump length. My bloods were perfect. I am just hoping that it is all down to the fact that DH is short with a fat neck and passes those characteristics on (honestly, its true of DD2!).

Well, firstly you're asking for sex, not gender, but that's pedantic.

Are your odds based on combined screening of bloods and nuchal translucency or on one only?

I appreciate that you're asking out of curiosity but I fear that you're looking for a false correlation which could potentially mislead and worry others.

Downs risk for DS2 was given as something really odd and specific like 1:1897.

He has ASD and LDs, anyhow, and has inherited a joint disorder from me that I didn't even know I had, back then. I do find the emphasis on testing for Downs a little odd, to be honest. It's not exactly the worst thing in the world but some midwives treat you like you're odd if you're not a little bit ever so paranoid about the result (my position was fine, because forewarned is forearmed, but I wouldn't be pushed into an amnio, or anything else invasive, regardless of the result)

Snickersnacker, I thought gender and sex is the same thing? Will google to check. My odd are based on nuchal, age and blood test. I don't want to cause any mislead or worry to others. I am just curious if what I was thinking is correct, which is why I wanted to know the screening results of others and sex of the baby. So I could compare.

Oh and I made a mistake on my post, I meant to write, with this pregnancy it is now lower risk then my first and I'm older and I was wondering if there was a reason. I'm not sure exactly how the testing works.

I'm not worried or anything, I am just asking out of curiosity. And I really hope this post does not lead to worry for anyone!

Mamabear, sex refers to the biological differences between male and female, gender to the socially recognised characteristics of the two sexes.

Thank you for clarifying - it's important to compare like with like. Wishing you all the best.

Thanks for clarifying snickersnacker and I wish you all the best as well!

Artichook, I hope all goes well with your delivery in two weeks!

I can't remember the actual figures, but I was

Low risk with dd1 at 37
Borderline High risk with dd2 at 38
Very low risk with ds at 41

All 3 were private scans and blood test at the same clinic. Ds was the lowest risk, but he has a genetic disorder that was not detected. Like Ouryve, I find the focus on Down's a bit odd. ( I had the scans in order to check for Edward's as there was history in close family).

The risk is individual to each pg and each baby.

Both male and female babyish can have Down's syndrome. So no sex is nothing to do with your risk. Each individual pregancy risk is calculated using your background risk based on age and obstetric history, nt measurement and your bloods. You can't seriously find a correlation with sex based on a few pregnancies.

I am a sonographer so will try and help clarify a few things. Sorry that's babies. Not babyish. Blimmon predictive text! It focuses on downs as that is the most common chromosome abnormality. It is based on stats and other chromosome abnormalities such as Edwards and Patau's
can be worked out at same time but the risk will always be lower than downs based on the numbers so they just focus on downs for simplicities ale I think. The calculator we used to use gave everything at once before the national screening programme came in.
To be honest Edwards syndrome tends to present with a cystic hygroma ( a very large nuchal) and we would tell everyone we saw that not just those that opted for screening as it so so common to have fetal death in utero and also we offer extra cardiac screening if nt very high as also associated with heart abnormalities - which is important to be prepared for so baby can be delivered at a specialist centre x
Hope that helps x

Just had my results back for DC2 and I'm low risk at 1 in 12,120 - bit curious as to why some women are 1in 85,000, whys mines not that large a scale, I'm young fit and healthy.... Worrying

That's a brilliant result what you saying. I don't know how old you are but assuming you are 25 your background risk for downs would have been 1 in 1250 i think. That means your test results will have lowered your risk significantly. That means the numbers from the tests would have come back lower than average x
Worry not - the results are just on a very large scale x

Actually, I'm curious about that as well. Why are some low risk 1:90,000 and others 1:2000. I know everyone is different. But what makes someone have such a large scale? For instance my first my age was 28 and it was 1: 53,000 and now I'm 30 and this one is 1:93,000. Both nuchal folds measured exactly the same. But bc I'm older, wouldn't that effect? What do they search for in the blood anyway?

Mamabear I am very confused with this scale also it is huge and I feel how can I be low at 12,120 when someone else is low at 95,000... What the beep? I'm going to have to ask my MW to explain properly as I feel it's confusing and misleading...

It is very simple - it is based on three factors combined: 1 background risk based largely on age, 2 nuchal in comparison to CRL and 3 bloods. So age is only one factor.

So mamabear, for second child you will have automatically started with higher background risk. If nt was similar ( bear in mind an nt of 1.7mm at 11 weeks is higher risk than nt of 1.7 at 13 weeks as they naturally increase in size a bit with gestation) then bloods must have been significantly lower with second child. Either way they were both very low.

Seriously whatyousaying 1 in 12000 is very low. 1 in 200 is classed as low. A 20 year old without any tests has a risk of 1 in 1700. That means you are more than 6 times lower risk that a 20 year old.

Slightly more males than females are born with Down's syndrome, so I suppose that would mean that over a population, more people with a foetus shown be at high risk of or diagnosed with Down's will turn out to have a boy. But gender wouldn't affect the screening in itself I don't think.

Because background risk is multiplied together with the other risk factors (soft markers, blood) when you are an older woman the screening calculations would still put you at higher risk even if your soft markers and bloods were identical to a younger woman. I guess it is saying that even if everything looks fine, more women of 40 will find out at birth they have a baby with Down's syndrome than women of 20.

In can be quite confusing, and (speaking from experience) one of the stressful things about being a bit older is that you worry that slightly skewed bloods plus age will put you into a risk bracket where you feel you want to consider amnio, when it has its own risks and when there is very little definitive to suggest a problem.

I think i will ask my midwife as well, bc I'm just curious. I guess maybe I'm healthier the second time around prior to pregnancy? With the first I smoked a few times a week, BEFORE I realised I was pregnant (I figured out fast, the day my p was late) and of course stopped and never touched a cigarette since. Maybe that cleared my blood and made me less risk. Also, second time I started taking prenatal vitamins a few weeks prior to conception bc I knew I was going to start trying for a baby. These could be factors, or it could just all be down to random reasons.

Whatyousaying - I've just been classed as low risk at 1 in 166, I would be turning cartwheels if I got 12,120! I believe the cut-off point is 150. Try not to worry, your results are outstanding :)

Hi ladies

I'm 44, first pregnancy, Thai background now 14 weeks.

12 weeks first scan at NHS with 1:2 result, combined of age+Nasal bone absent+blood+NT 2.4mm. I was so upset with the odd. I was ready to have CVS on the same day, but couldn't do it for many reasons.

13 weeks second scan at Fetal Medicine Centre in Harley street with 1:3 result, combined of age+Nasal bone absent+blood+NT 2.3mm. Not great but for some reason I feel much better with the odd.

However, I made decision to have non-invasive " Harmony blood test " check Fetal DS from mother's blood. I'm waiting for the result. I'm so scared.

During the time of waiting I did some more research about the Nasal Bone Absent on the Fetal. I found an E-Journal on the research of Thai's Maternal-Fetal at Chalalongkon University in Bangkok. The study said most of Nasal bone measurements are base on Caucasian. Most Thai Fetal Nasal bone show between 14-18 weeks. I'm so confused.

I'm hoping for good news to come by the end of next week. I'll keep you all posted.

Wish me luck.

PS. I hope my experience with " Harmony blood test " will help someone Make decision to go with non-invasive procedure. It's cost £400 but no risk at all. I've been told that the procedure might be available in NHS in 2015. My midwife never heard of the procedure.

Many Thanks for reading my message.

xoxoxo

I was 1:8000 and now I am seeing some people get 100,000 I am worried! I'm 22 and they said the scan and everything looked fine and I was low risk but why are some people getting such high numbers? Worried.

1/100,000 risk and girl (or so says the scan - I'm due in 2 weeks). I was astounded at the results as I'm 37 and never expected the risk to be so low.

1:100,000 and 2 scans say it's a girl. Age 34 years and 9 months at time of testing.

We decided not to have tests for both dds