Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in patients with low embryo numbers: benefit or harm?
In vitro fertilization
Low ovarian reserve
Pregnancy
Preimplantation genetic testing
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
13
06
2022
accepted:
03
08
2022
pubmed:
18
8
2022
medline:
17
9
2022
entrez:
17
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We sought to explore the utility of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in a poor prognosis group of women with few embryos available for transfer. This was a retrospective matched cohort study examining records for first or second-cycle IVF patients with 1 to 3 blastocysts. The study group comprised 130 patients who underwent PGT-A on all embryos. The control group included 130 patients matched by age, BMI, and blastocyst number and quality who did not undergo PGT-A during the same time period. The live birth rate (LBR) per embryo transfer (ET) were similar in the PGT-A and control groups, and the spontaneous abortion (SAB) rate was the same (23%). However, we found a significantly higher LBR per oocyte retrieval in the control group vs the PGT-A group (43% vs 20%, respectively) likely due to the many no-euploid cycles in the PGT-A group. In a subgroup analysis for age, the similar LBR per ET persisted in women < 38. However, in older women, there was a trend to a higher LBR per ET in the PGT-A group (43%) vs the control group (22%) but a higher LBR per oocyte retrieval in the control group (31%) vs the PGT-A group (13%). Overall, we observed a significant increase in LBR per oocyte retrieval in women in the control group compared to women undergoing PGT-A, and no difference in SAB rate. Our data suggests that PGT-A has no benefit in a subpopulation of women with few embryos and may cause harm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35976536
doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02588-9
pii: 10.1007/s10815-022-02588-9
pmc: PMC9474967
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2027-2033Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Gleicher N, Orvieto R. “Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review,” (in eng). J Ovarian Res. 2017;10(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-017-0318-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s13048-017-0318-3
pubmed: 28347334
pmcid: 5368937
Gleicher N, Patrizio P, Orvieto R. “How not to introduce laboratory tests to clinical practice: preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy,” (in eng). Clin Chem. 2022;68(4):501–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvac001 .
doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvac001
pubmed: 35088831
Yang M, et al. “Author Correction: Depletion of aneuploid cells in human embryos and gastruloids,” (in eng). Nat Cell Biol. 2021;23(11):1212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-021-00775-x .
doi: 10.1038/s41556-021-00775-x
pubmed: 34548640
Bolton H, et al. “Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential,” (in eng). Nat Commun. 2016;7:11165. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11165 .
doi: 10.1038/ncomms11165
pubmed: 27021558
pmcid: 4820631
Kang HJ, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. “Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits?,” (in eng). Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):597–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.027 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.027
pubmed: 27143516
Munné S, et al. “Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial,” (in eng). Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1071-1079.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.1346 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.1346
pubmed: 31551155
Rubio C, et al. “In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study,” (in eng). Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1122–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011
pubmed: 28433371
Yan J, et al. “Live Birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy,” (in eng). N Engl J Med. 2021;385(22):2047–58. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2103613 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103613
pubmed: 34818479
Meriano JS, Alexis J, Visram-Zaver S, Cruz M, Casper RF. “Tracking of oocyte dysmorphisms for ICSI patients may prove relevant to the outcome in subsequent patient cycles,” (in eng). Hum Reprod. 2001;16(10):2118–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.10.2118 .
doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.10.2118
pubmed: 11574502
Rama Raju GA, Prakash GJ, Krishna KM, Madan K. “Meiotic spindle and zona pellucida characteristics as predictors of embryonic development: a preliminary study using PolScope imaging,” (in eng). Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(2):166–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60784-5 .
doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60784-5
pubmed: 17298718
Gardner DK, Lane M. “Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF?,” (in eng). Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3(4):367–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/3.4.367 .
doi: 10.1093/humupd/3.4.367
pubmed: 9459282
Moreno I, et al. “Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure,” (in eng). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):684–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075
pubmed: 27717732
Franasiak JM, Scott RT. “Contribution of immunology to implantation failure of euploid embryos,” (in eng). Fertil Steril. 2017;107(6):1279–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.04.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.04.019
pubmed: 28501368
Franasiak JM, et al. “The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening,” (in eng). Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):656-663.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004
pubmed: 24355045
Domar AD, Smith K, Conboy L, Iannone M, Alper M. “A prospective investigation into the reasons why insured United States patients drop out of in vitro fertilization treatment,” (in eng). Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1457–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.020 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.020
pubmed: 19591985
Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. “Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A Meta-Analysis,” (in eng). PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140779 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140779
pubmed: 26470028
pmcid: 4607161
Maxwell SM, McCulloh DH, Lee H, Berkeley AS, Grifo J. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with next generation sequencing (NGS) achieves ongoing pregnancy with fewer transfers and total miscarriages compared to non-PGS cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.082 .
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.082
Murphy LA, et al. To test or not to test? A framework for counselling patients on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Hum Reprod. 2018;34(2):268–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey346 .
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey346