Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 6/2017

01-06-2017 | Commentary

Prenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities in IVF patients that opted for preimplantation genetic screening/diagnosis (PGS/D): a need for revised algorithms in the era of personalized medicine

Authors: Afua Takyi, Joaquin Santolaya-Forgas

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Obstetricians offer prenatal screening for most common chromosomal abnormalities to all pregnant women including those that had in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic screening/diagnosis (PGS/D). We propose that free fetal DNA in maternal circulation together with the second trimester maternal serum alfa feto protein (MSAFP) and ultrasound imaging is the best prenatal screening test for chromosomal abnormalities and congenital anomalies in IVF-PGD/S patients because risk estimations from all other prenatal screening algorithms for chromosomal abnormalities depend heavily on maternal age which is irrelevant in PGS/D patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sunderam S, Kissin D, Crawford SB, Folger S, Jamieson D, Warner L, et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR. 2015;64(11):1–25. Sunderam S, Kissin D, Crawford SB, Folger S, Jamieson D, Warner L, et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR. 2015;64(11):1–25.
2.
go back to reference Chang J, Boulet S, Jeng G, Flowers L, Kissin D. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011–2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):394–400.CrossRefPubMed Chang J, Boulet S, Jeng G, Flowers L, Kissin D. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011–2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):394–400.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Winkelman W, Missmer S, Myers D, Ginsburg S. Public perspective on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:665–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Winkelman W, Missmer S, Myers D, Ginsburg S. Public perspective on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:665–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Collins S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: technical advances and expanding applications. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25:201–6.CrossRefPubMed Collins S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: technical advances and expanding applications. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25:201–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Li G, Haixia J, Zhimin X, Su Y, Brezina P, Benner A, et al. Increased IVF pregnancy rates after microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis due to parental translocations. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2014;60(2):119–24.CrossRefPubMed Li G, Haixia J, Zhimin X, Su Y, Brezina P, Benner A, et al. Increased IVF pregnancy rates after microarray preimplantation genetic diagnosis due to parental translocations. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2014;60(2):119–24.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Tobler K, Brezina P, Benner A, Du L, Xu X, Kearns W. Two different microarray technologies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening, due to reciprocal translocation imbalances, demonstrate equivalent euploidy and clinical pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:843–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tobler K, Brezina P, Benner A, Du L, Xu X, Kearns W. Two different microarray technologies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening, due to reciprocal translocation imbalances, demonstrate equivalent euploidy and clinical pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:843–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Silberstein T, Levy A, Harlev A, Saphier O, Sheiner E. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies following in vitro fertilization and ovulation induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(13):1316–9.CrossRefPubMed Silberstein T, Levy A, Harlev A, Saphier O, Sheiner E. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies following in vitro fertilization and ovulation induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(13):1316–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(4):330–53.CrossRefPubMed Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(4):330–53.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Werner MD, Leondires M, Arredondo F, Hickman T, Schoolcraft W, Scott RT. The clinical misdiagnosis rate with QPCR based comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryonic aneuploidy is low and may commonly reflect mosaicism. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):Supplement S129.CrossRef Werner MD, Leondires M, Arredondo F, Hickman T, Schoolcraft W, Scott RT. The clinical misdiagnosis rate with QPCR based comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryonic aneuploidy is low and may commonly reflect mosaicism. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):Supplement S129.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Tiegs AW, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Grifo J. Clinical error rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):Supplement e275.CrossRef Tiegs AW, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Grifo J. Clinical error rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):Supplement e275.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Francois L, Kugler L, Santolaya JL, Faro R, Di Stefano V, Santolaya-Forgas J. Screening for Down syndrome in dichorionic twin pregnancies conceived by IVF: a clinical pilot study to confirm the laboratory methods. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(1):125–8.CrossRefPubMed Francois L, Kugler L, Santolaya JL, Faro R, Di Stefano V, Santolaya-Forgas J. Screening for Down syndrome in dichorionic twin pregnancies conceived by IVF: a clinical pilot study to confirm the laboratory methods. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(1):125–8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference The American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. Cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy. Committee Opinion No 640. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e31–7.CrossRef The American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. Cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy. Committee Opinion No 640. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e31–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Borrell A, Robinson JN, Santolaya-Forgas J. Report on the 11–13+6 week ultrasound evaluation as a screening test for trisomy 21 in singleton pregnancies. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26(10):703–10.CrossRefPubMed Borrell A, Robinson JN, Santolaya-Forgas J. Report on the 11–13+6 week ultrasound evaluation as a screening test for trisomy 21 in singleton pregnancies. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26(10):703–10.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR. Fetal imaging: executive summary of the joint Eunice Kennedy Shiver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetrician Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;3(5):745–57.CrossRef Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR. Fetal imaging: executive summary of the joint Eunice Kennedy Shiver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetrician Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;3(5):745–57.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Baer RJ, Currier RJ, Norton ME, Flessel MC, Goldman S, Towner D, Jellife-Pawlowski LL. Obstetric, perinatal, and fetal outcomes in pregnancies with false-positive integrated screening results. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):603–9.CrossRefPubMed Baer RJ, Currier RJ, Norton ME, Flessel MC, Goldman S, Towner D, Jellife-Pawlowski LL. Obstetric, perinatal, and fetal outcomes in pregnancies with false-positive integrated screening results. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):603–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Prenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities in IVF patients that opted for preimplantation genetic screening/diagnosis (PGS/D): a need for revised algorithms in the era of personalized medicine
Authors
Afua Takyi
Joaquin Santolaya-Forgas
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0907-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 6/2017 Go to the issue