Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology and Hepatology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
ASH 2024 Annual Meeting 2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Podcast | Sexual health in older age

Dr Holly Thomas helps us unpack the needlessly taboo subject of sex and sexual health in women of older age.

Listen now
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in:

18-12-2024 | In Vitro Fertilization | Opinion

An additive opinion to the committee opinion of ASRM and SART on the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)

Authors: Norbert Gleicher, David H. Barad, Pasquale Patrizio, Sonia Gayete-Lafuente, Andrea Weghofer, Zion Ben Rafael, Shizuko Takahashi, Demián Glujovsky, Ben W. Mol, Raoul Orvieto

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 1/2025

Login to get access

Abstract

After over 20 years of progressively increasing clinical utilization of PGT-A (and its precursors), the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and its daughter society, the Society for Assisted Reproduction (SART), for the first time published a committee opinion clearly acknowledging that “the value of PGT-A as a routine screening test for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) has not been demonstrated.” This statement is timely and welcome but requires some additions and raises some new questions, among those why, if PGT-A in a general population does not improve IVF cycle outcomes, the routine clinical utilization of PGT-A should continue.
Literature
1.
2.
Penketh RJ, Delhanty JD, van den Berghe JA, Finklestone EM, Handyside AH, Malcom S, Winston RM. Rapid sexing of human embryos by non-radioactive in situ hybridization: potential for preimplantation diagnosis of X-linked disorders. Prenat Diagn. 1989;9(7):489–99.PubMed
3.
Edwards RG, Handyside AH. Future development in IVF. Br Med Bull. 1990;46(3):823–41.PubMed
4.
Verlinsky Y, Pergament E, Strom C. The preimplantation genetic diagnosis of genetic disease. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1990;7(1):1–5.PubMed
5.
Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(7):1923–7.PubMed
6.
Cooper AR, Viotti M. The time is now to change the narrative on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2024;122(1):74–5.PubMed
7.
8.
Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Ssche E, Michiels A, Tournay H, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2849–58.PubMed
9.
Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in women older than 37 years. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):319–24.PubMed
10.
Blockeel C, Schutyser V, De Vos A, Verpoest W, De Vos M, et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):848–54.PubMed
11.
Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Preimplantation genetic screening “established” and ready for prime time? Fertil Steril. 2008;89(4):780–8.PubMed
12.
Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):9–17.PubMed
13.
Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman K, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:E59.
14.
Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90.PubMed
15.
Bolton H, Graham SJK, Van der Aa N, Kumar P, Theunis K, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nat Commun. 2016;29(7):11165.
16.
Gleicher N, Metzger J, Croft G, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. A single trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage is mathematically unable to determine embryo ploidy accurately enough for clinical use. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15(1):33.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
McCoy RC. Mosaicism in preimplantation human embryos: when chromosomal abnormalities are the norm. Trends Genet. 2017;33(7):448–63.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, Fleischer K, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2020;9(9):CD005291
19.
Orvieto R, Gleicher N. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) – finally revealed. J Assist reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):669–72.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Orvieto R, Shimon C, Rienstein S, Jonish-Grossman A, Shani H, Aizer A. Do human embryos have the ability of self-correction? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18:98.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Griffin DK, Brezina PR, Tobler K, Zhao Y, Silvestri G, et al. The human embryonic genome is karyotypically complex, with chromosomally abnormal cells preferentially located away from the developing fetus. Hum Reprod. 2023;38(1):180–8.PubMed
22.
Yang M, Rirto T, Metzger J, Naftaly J, Soman R, et al. Depletion of aneuploid cells in human embryos and gastruloids. Nat Cell Biol. 2021;23(4):314–21 (Author Correction: 23(11):1212).PubMed
23.
Paulson RJ, Treff NR. Isn’t it time to stop calling preimplantation embryos “mosaic”? F&S Rep. 2020;1(3):164–5.
24.
25.
Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Sen A, Darmon SK, Weghofer A, et al. Definition by FSH and AMH and embryo numbers of good-, intermediate-, and poor-prognosis patients suggests previously unknown IVF outcome-determining factor associated with AMH. J Transl Med. 2016;14(1):172.PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Practice Committees of the ASRM and SART. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:651–4.
27.
Adashi RY, Gleicher N. Is a blanket elective single embryo transfer policy defensible. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017;8(2):e0022.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Transferring more than one embryo simultaneously is justifiable in most patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44(1):1–4.PubMed
29.
Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryos transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2097–106.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Coorens THH, Oliver TRW, Sanghvi R, Sovio U, Cook E, et al. Inherent mosaicism and extensive mutation of human placentas. Nature. 2021;592:80–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Brosens JJ, Bennett PR, Abrahams VM, Ramhorst R, Coomarasamy A, et al. Maternal selection of human embryos in early gestation: insights from recurrent miscarriage. Sem Cell Develop Biol. 2022;131:14–24.
32.
Practice Committee of the ASRM. Electronic address: asrm&asrm.org. Definition of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(3):533–5.
33.
Kieu V, Polyakov A, Rozen G, Lantsberg D, Stern C, Teh W-T. Live birth rates in day 5 fresh versus vitrified single blastocsyts transfer cycles: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2023;21(3):245–54.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Steinberg Weiss M, Luo C, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Kissin DM, Satten G, Barnhart KT. Fresh vs frozen embryo transfer: new approach to minimize the limitations of using national surveillance data for clinical research. Fertil Steril. 2023;11992:186–94.
35.
Zaat T, Zagers M, Mol F, Goddjin M, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2(2):CD011184.PubMed
36.
Practice Committee and Genetic Counseling Professional group (GCPG) of the ASRM. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertile Steril. 2020;114:246–54.
37.
Gleicher N, Barad DH, Ben-Rafael Z, Glujovsky D, Mochizuki L, et al. Commentary on two recently published formal guidelines of management of “mosaic” embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021;19(1):23.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Gleicher N, Barad DH, Patrizio P, Orvieto R. We have reached a dead end for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy/. Hum Reprod. 2022;37(12):2730–4.PubMed
39.
Viotti M, Greco E, Grifo JA, Madjunkov M, Librach C, et al. Chromosomal, gestational, and neonatal outcomes of embryos classified as a mosaic by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(5):957–66.PubMed
40.
Barad DH, Albertini DF, Molinari E, Gleicher N. IVF outcomes of embryos with abnormal PGT-A biopsy previously refused transfer: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2022;37(6):1194–206.PubMed
41.
Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:228–30.PubMed
42.
Paulson RJ. Outcome of in vitro fertilization cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies: let’s be honest with one another. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1013–4.PubMed
43.
Kepper PJ, Wightman SC, Shakhsheer BA. Shared consent. Acknowledging the subjectivity of surgical decision making. Ann Surg. 2023;277(5):e979–80.PubMed
44.
Gleicher N, Barad DH. The chice of gender: is elective gender selection, indeed, sexist? Hum reprod. 2007;22(11):3084–3041.
45.
Orvieto R, Aizer A, Gleicher N. Is there still a rational for non-invasive PGT-A by analysis of cell-free DNA released by human embryos into culture medium? Hum Reprod. 2021;36(5):1186–90.PubMed
46.
Gleicher N, Albertini DF, Patrizio P, Orvieto R, Adashi EY. The uncertain science of preimplantation and prenatal testing. Nat Med. 2022;28(3):442–4.PubMed
47.
Capalbo A, de Wert G, Mertes H, Klausner L, Coonen R, et al. Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations. Hum Reprod Update. 2024;30(5):529–57.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
An additive opinion to the committee opinion of ASRM and SART on the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)
Authors
Norbert Gleicher
David H. Barad
Pasquale Patrizio
Sonia Gayete-Lafuente
Andrea Weghofer
Zion Ben Rafael
Shizuko Takahashi
Demián Glujovsky
Ben W. Mol
Raoul Orvieto
Publication date
18-12-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 1/2025
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03318-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2025

Negotiating the space and time conundrum in human zygotes: chaos theory in action

  • Commentary

Greater PGT-A utilization in IVF clinics does not improve live birth rates but relates to IVF center ownership: a preliminary report

Effect of zinc on sperm recovered by swim-up

  • Gamete Biology

A multicycle approach through DuoStim with a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol: a valuable option in poor prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A

  • Progestin
  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Complex chromosomal rearrangements in female carriers experiencing recurrent pregnancy loss or poor obstetric history and literature review

Impact of perceived social support on anxiety and depression in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: the role of psychological resilience

  • Open Access
  • Anxiety
  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Menopause can have a significant impact on the body, with effects ranging beyond the endocrine and reproductive systems. Learn about the systemic effects of menopause, so you can help patients in your clinics through the transition.   

Prof. Martha Hickey
Dr. Claudia Barth
Dr. Samar El Khoudary
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Watch now
Video
Image Credits