Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 12/2018

01-12-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Decision-making surrounding the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy reveals misunderstanding regarding its benefit

Authors: Molly M. Quinn, Flor Juarez-Hernandez, Molly Dunn, Richard Jason Okamura, Marcelle I. Cedars, Mitchell P. Rosen

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 12/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to explore how patients make decisions regarding use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods

This is a cross-sectional survey at an academic medical center. Three hundred subjects initiating an IVF cycle over 8 weeks were asked to complete a validated survey to determine how they decided whether or not to pursue PGT-A. All patients were previously counseled that the primary goal of PGT-A is to maximize pregnancy rates per embryo transfer. Survey responses were compared between those who elected PGT-A and those who did not with a chi-squared or t test.

Results

Of 191 subjects who completed the survey, 117 (61%) planned PGT-A, while 74 (39%) did not. Among those who decided to undergo PGT-A, 56% stated their primary reason was to have a healthy baby, while 18% chose PGT-A to reduce the incidence of birth defects, and 16% aimed to decrease the risk of miscarriage. Patients who decided not to pursue PGT-A stated they prioritized avoiding the scenario in which they might have no embryos to transfer (36%) or reducing cost (31%). Both groups rated physicians as the single most important source of information in their decision-making (56% vs 68%, p = NS).

Conclusions

Patients who chose to undergo PGT-A have different priorities from those who do not. Many patients planning PGT-A do so for reasons that are not evidence-based. While patients cite physicians as their primary source of information in the decision-making process, rationales for selecting PGT-A are inconsistent with physician counseling.
Literature
1.
go back to reference De Rycke M, Goossens V, Kokkali G, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Coonen E, Moutou C. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV-XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):1974–94.CrossRef De Rycke M, Goossens V, Kokkali G, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Coonen E, Moutou C. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV-XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):1974–94.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gleicher N, Barad DH. A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(11):1159–66.CrossRef Gleicher N, Barad DH. A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(11):1159–66.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846–50.CrossRef Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846–50.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Paulson RJ. Every last baby out of every last egg: the appropriate goal for fertility treatment in women older than 40 years. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1443–4.CrossRef Paulson RJ. Every last baby out of every last egg: the appropriate goal for fertility treatment in women older than 40 years. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1443–4.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.CrossRef Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:697–703.CrossRef Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:697–703.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429–36.CrossRef Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429–36.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(8):839–44.CrossRef Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(8):839–44.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;l23:901–6.CrossRef Capalbo A, Treff NR, Cimadomo D, Tao X, Upham K, Ubaldi FM, et al. Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;l23:901–6.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, Nuccitelli A, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2802–13.CrossRef Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, Nuccitelli A, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2802–13.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(8):845–57.CrossRef Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(8):845–57.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Godwin Y. Do they listen? A review of information retained by patients following consent for reduction mammoplasty. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:121–5.CrossRef Godwin Y. Do they listen? A review of information retained by patients following consent for reduction mammoplasty. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:121–5.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Turner P, Williams C. Informed consent: patients listen and read, but what information do they retain? N Z Med J. 2001;115(1164):U218. Turner P, Williams C. Informed consent: patients listen and read, but what information do they retain? N Z Med J. 2001;115(1164):U218.
15.
go back to reference Naini P, Lewis J, Rajanna K, Weir AB 3rd. Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process: improved data retention with stagnant comprehension. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28(1):38–42.CrossRef Naini P, Lewis J, Rajanna K, Weir AB 3rd. Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process: improved data retention with stagnant comprehension. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28(1):38–42.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID. Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;84(6):404–8.CrossRef Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID. Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;84(6):404–8.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ruiz JG, Andrade AD, Anam R, Lisigurski M, Karanam C, Sharit J. Computer-based programmed instruction did not improve the knowledge retention of medication instructions of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Educ. 2014;40(1):77–88.CrossRef Ruiz JG, Andrade AD, Anam R, Lisigurski M, Karanam C, Sharit J. Computer-based programmed instruction did not improve the knowledge retention of medication instructions of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Educ. 2014;40(1):77–88.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Anderson JL, Dodman S, Kopelman M, Fleming A. Patient information recall in a rheumatology clinic. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979;18:244–55.CrossRef Anderson JL, Dodman S, Kopelman M, Fleming A. Patient information recall in a rheumatology clinic. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979;18:244–55.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bennett LR, Wiweko B, Bell L, Shafira N, Pangestu M, Adayana IB, et al. Reproductive knowledge and patient education needs among Indonesian women infertility patients attending three fertility clinics. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(3):364–9.CrossRef Bennett LR, Wiweko B, Bell L, Shafira N, Pangestu M, Adayana IB, et al. Reproductive knowledge and patient education needs among Indonesian women infertility patients attending three fertility clinics. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(3):364–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ley P. Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1979;18:245–55.CrossRef Ley P. Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1979;18:245–55.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:280–91.CrossRef Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:280–91.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Murugappan G, Shahine LK, Perfetto CO, Hickok LR, Lathi RB. Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1668–74.CrossRef Murugappan G, Shahine LK, Perfetto CO, Hickok LR, Lathi RB. Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1668–74.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cedars MI. Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):251–6.CrossRef Cedars MI. Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):251–6.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–7.CrossRef Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–7.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Treff NR, Ferry KM, Zhao T, Su J, Forman EJ, Scott RT. Cleavage stage embryo biopsy significantly impairs embryonic reproductive potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a novel paired analysis of cotransferred biopsied and non-biopsied sibling embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:52. Treff NR, Ferry KM, Zhao T, Su J, Forman EJ, Scott RT. Cleavage stage embryo biopsy significantly impairs embryonic reproductive potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a novel paired analysis of cotransferred biopsied and non-biopsied sibling embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:52.
Metadata
Title
Decision-making surrounding the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy reveals misunderstanding regarding its benefit
Authors
Molly M. Quinn
Flor Juarez-Hernandez
Molly Dunn
Richard Jason Okamura
Marcelle I. Cedars
Mitchell P. Rosen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 12/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1337-8

Other articles of this Issue 12/2018

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 12/2018 Go to the issue