A heatmap for expected cumulative live birth rate in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders and chromosomal structural rearrangements.
AMH
Cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)
Female age
Preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR)
Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorder (PGT-M)
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:
16 May 2024
16 May 2024
Historique:
received:
21
02
2024
accepted:
09
05
2024
medline:
16
5
2024
pubmed:
16
5
2024
entrez:
16
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Our objective is to predict the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and identify the specific subset within the population undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) and chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) which is likely to exhibit a diminished expected CLBR based on various patient demographics. We performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study including 1522 women undergoing 3130 PGT cycles at a referral centre for PGT. A logistic regression analysis was performed to predict the CLBR per ovarian stimulation in women undergoing PGT-M by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, and in women undergoing PGT-SR by SNP array, array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS). The mean age of women was 32.6 years, with a mean AMH of 2.75 µg/L. Female age and AMH significantly affected the expected CLBR irrespective of the inheritance mode or PGT technology. An expected CLBR < 10% was reached above the age of 42 years and AMH ≤ 1.25 µg/L. We found no significant difference in outcome per ovarian stimulation between the different PGT technologies, i.e. PCR, SNP array, array CGH and NGS. Whereas per embryo transfer, we noticed a significantly higher probability of live birth when SNP array, array CGH and NGS were used as compared to PCR. In a PGT-setting, couples with an unfavourable female age and AMH should be informed of the prognosis to allow other reproductive choices. The heatmap produced in this study can be used as a visual tool for PGT couples.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38753088
doi: 10.1007/s10815-024-03141-6
pii: 10.1007/s10815-024-03141-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Handyside AH, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RML. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344:768–70.
doi: 10.1038/344768a0
pubmed: 2330030
De Rycke M, Berckmoes V, De Vos A, Van De Voorde S, Verdyck P, Verpoest W, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing: clinical experience of preimplantation genetic testing. Reproduction [Internet]. 2020;160. Available from: https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/160/5/REP-20-0082.xml . [cited 2020 Nov 10].
Tur-Kaspa I. Clinical management of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30:309–22.
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1313910
pubmed: 22723012
McLernon DJ, Maheshwari A, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rates after one or more complete cycles of IVF: a population-based study of linked cycle data from 178,898 women. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2016;31:572–81.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev336
pubmed: 26783243
Vaughan DA, Leung A, Resetkova N, Ruthazer R, Penzias AS, Sakkas D, et al. How many oocytes are optimal to achieve multiple live births with one stimulation cycle? The one-and-done approach. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:397-404.e3.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.037
pubmed: 27916206
Van Der Kelen A, Santos-Ribeiro S, De Vos A, Verdyck P, De Rycke M, Berckmoes V, et al. Parameters of poor prognosis in preimplantati on genetic testing for monogenic disorders. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:deab136.
Tal R, Seifer DB, Tal R, Granger E, Wantman E, Tal O. AMH highly correlates with cumulative live birth rate in women with diminished ovarian reserve independent of age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106:2754–66.
doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgab168
pubmed: 33729496
De Rycke M, Berckmoes V. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders. Genes (Basel) [Internet]. 2020;11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7463885/ . [cited 2020 Oct 19].
Carvalho F, Moutou C, Dimitriadou E, Dreesen J, Giménez C, Goossens V, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of monogenic disorders†. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020:hoaa018.
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa018
pubmed: 32500103
pmcid: 7257022
Verpoest W, De Rademaeker M, Sermon K, De Rycke M, Seneca S, Papanikolaou E, et al. Real and expected delivery rates of patients with myotonic dystrophy undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1654–60.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/den105
pubmed: 18408243
De Vos A, Staessen C, De Rycke M, Verpoest W, Haentjens P, Devroey P, et al. Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2988–96.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep251
pubmed: 19773223
Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31:370–6.
pubmed: 26724797
De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, De Rycke M, Verdyck P, Verheyen G, Buysse A, et al. Multiple vitrification-warming and biopsy procedures on human embryos: clinical outcome and neonatal follow-up of children. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:2488–96.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa236
pubmed: 33047114
Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00518-5
pubmed: 10856474
Van Landuyt L, Polyzos NP, De Munck N, Blockeel C, Van de Velde H, Verheyen G. A prospective randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of artificial shrinkage (collapse) on the implantation potential of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2509–18.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev218
pubmed: 26364080
Copp T, Kvesic D, Lieberman D, Bateson D, McCaffery KJ. ‘Your hopes can run away with your realistic expectations’: a qualitative study of women and men’s decision-making when undergoing multiple cycles of IVF. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020:hoaa059.
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa059
pubmed: 33392395
pmcid: 7757429
Devroe J, Peeraer K, D’Hooghe TM, Boivin J, Laenen A, Vriens J, et al. Great expectations of IVF patients: the role of gender, dispositional optimism and shared IVF prognoses. Hum Reprod. 2022;37:997–1006.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac038
pubmed: 35213695
Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, 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. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:656-663.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004
pubmed: 24355045
Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJC, Lentjes EGW, Torrance HL, Macklon NS, Fauser BCJM, et al. Antimüllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative live birth in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:891-898.e2.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.030
pubmed: 26196233
Gruhn JR, Zielinska AP, Shukla V, Blanshard R, Capalbo A, Cimadomo D, et al. Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science. 2019;365:1466–9.
doi: 10.1126/science.aav7321
pubmed: 31604276
pmcid: 7212007
Reig A, Franasiak J, Scott RT, Seli E. The impact of age beyond ploidy: outcome data from 8175 euploid single embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:595–602.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-020-01739-0
pubmed: 32173784
pmcid: 7125286
Supramaniam PR, Mittal M, McVeigh E, Lim LN. The correlation between raised body mass index and assisted reproductive treatment outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. Reprod Health. 2018;15:34.
doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0481-z
pubmed: 29486787
pmcid: 5830337
Xue X, Shi W, Zhou H, Tian L, Zhao Z, Zhou D, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to maternal body mass index after first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a single center analysis of 14,782 patients. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:149.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00149
pubmed: 32328028
Insogna IG, Lee MS, Reimers RM, Toth TL. Neutral effect of body mass index on implantation rate after frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:770-776.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.024
pubmed: 28985909
Ben-Haroush A, Sirota I, Salman L, Son W-Y, Tulandi T, Holzer H, et al. The influence of body mass index on pregnancy outcome following single-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1295–300.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1186-5
pubmed: 29808381
pmcid: 6063822
Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.039
pubmed: 23773313