Consistency in rates of diagnosis of embryonic mosaicism, segmental abnormalities, and "no call" results among experienced embryologists performing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.
IVF laboratory
Mosaicism
nonconcurrent and unamplified results
preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)
segmental abnormalities
Journal
F&S reports
ISSN: 2666-3341
Titre abrégé: F S Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101766618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
26
03
2020
revised:
07
05
2020
accepted:
12
05
2020
entrez:
5
7
2021
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine whether differences exist in rates of subchromosomal abnormalities, mosaicism, and "no call" results among embryologists performing and loading trophectoderm biopsies for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Retrospective cohort. Large infertility center. All patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with PGT-A. The NexCCS next generation sequencing platform was used for PGT-A. The χ Interoperator variability in rates of mosaic, segmental, and no call results. Four embryologists performed 30,899 biopsies and 6 embryologists loaded specimens into designated tubes. Among individuals performing trophectoderm sampling, rates of mosaicism were 4.3% to 6.1%, segmental errors were 9.0% to 10.7%, and inconclusive results were 1.1% to 2.9%. For those loading, the incidence of mosaicism was 4.2% to 5.9%, subchromosomal abnormalities was 9.7% to 10.4%, and no call results was 1.2% to 2.2%. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.978 for embryologists performing biopsies and 0.981 for those loading. Differences in mean MAPD scores were within 0.6% and 0.2% of each other for doing biopsies and loading embryologists, respectively. Rates of mosaicism, segmental, and no call PGT-A results are consistent among experienced embryologists. Due to the large sample size included, differences within 1% of the mean were deemed clinically irrelevant despite statistical significance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34223227
doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2020.05.005
pii: S2666-3341(20)30016-7
pmc: PMC8244265
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
119-124Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Références
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Oct;36(10):2103-2109
pubmed: 31471748
Fertil Steril. 2018 Apr;109(4):627-632
pubmed: 29605407
Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107(5):1085-1091
pubmed: 28390692
Mol Hum Reprod. 2018 Jan 01;24(1):37-45
pubmed: 29186554
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Jun;22(6):506-8
pubmed: 21493156
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Oct;39(4):599-607
pubmed: 31492521
Hum Reprod. 2018 Oct 1;33(10):1839-1846
pubmed: 30239718
Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec 01;32(12):2549-2560
pubmed: 29126206
Biosci Rep. 2017 Jul 7;37(4):
pubmed: 28572171