Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 9/2018

01-09-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool

Authors: Randi H. Goldman, Catherine Racowsky, Leslie V. Farland, Janis H. Fox, Santiago Munné, Lia Ribustello, Elizabeth S. Ginsburg

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the expected out-of-pocket costs of IVF with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) to attain a 50%, 75%, or 90% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst based on individual age and AMH, and develop a personalized counseling tool.

Methods

A cost analysis was performed and a counseling tool was developed using retrospective data from IVF cycles intended for PGT or blastocyst freeze-all between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2017 (n = 330) and aggregate statistics on euploidy rates of > 149,000 embryos from CooperGenomics. Poisson regression was used to determine the number of biopsiable blastocysts obtained per cycle, based on age and AMH. The expected costs of attaining a 50%, 75%, and 90% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst were determined via 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for each age and AMH combination, incorporating age-based euploidy rates and IVF/PGT-A cost assumptions.

Results

The cost to attain a 50% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst ranges from approximately $15,000 U.S. dollars (USD) for younger women with higher AMH values (≥ 2 ng/mL) to > $150,000 for the oldest women (44 years) with the lowest AMH values (< 0.1 ng/mL) in this cohort. The cost to attain a 75% versus 90% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst is similar (~ $16,000) for younger women with higher AMH values, but varies for the oldest women with low AMH values (~ $280,000 and > $450,000, respectively). A typical patient (36–37 years, AMH 2.5 ng/mL) should expect to spend ~ $30,000 for a 90% likelihood of attaining a euploid embryo.

Conclusions

This tool can serve as a counseling adjunct by providing individualized cost information for patients regarding PGT-A.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, et al. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for “add-on” interventions? Hum Reprod. 2017;32:485–91.CrossRefPubMed Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, et al. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for “add-on” interventions? Hum Reprod. 2017;32:485–91.CrossRefPubMed
2.
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;22:845–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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;22:845–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Capalbo A, Romanelli V, Cimadomo D, Girardi L, Stoppa M, Dovere L, et al. Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1279–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Capalbo A, Romanelli V, Cimadomo D, Girardi L, Stoppa M, Dovere L, et al. Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1279–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Gebhart MB, Hines RS, Penman A, Holland AC. How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:188–93.CrossRefPubMed Gebhart MB, Hines RS, Penman A, Holland AC. How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:188–93.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1503–12.CrossRefPubMed Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1503–12.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Murugappan G, Ohno MS, Lathi RB. Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1215–20.CrossRefPubMed Murugappan G, Ohno MS, Lathi RB. Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1215–20.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
go back to reference Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Hoek A, Heineman M-J, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, et al. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2813–7.CrossRefPubMed Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Hoek A, Heineman M-J, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, et al. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2813–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:21.CrossRefPubMed Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:21.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Buffo L, Trabucco E, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1173–80.CrossRefPubMed Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Buffo L, Trabucco E, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1173–80.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Weissman A, Shoham G, Shoham Z, Fishel S, Leong M, Yaron Y. Preimplantation genetic screening: results of a worldwide web-based survey. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:693–700.CrossRefPubMed Weissman A, Shoham G, Shoham Z, Fishel S, Leong M, Yaron Y. Preimplantation genetic screening: results of a worldwide web-based survey. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:693–700.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefPubMed Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1846–50.CrossRefPubMed Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1846–50.CrossRefPubMed
14.
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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference La Marca A, Minasi MG, Sighinolfi G, Greco P, Argento C, Grisendi V, et al. Female age, serum antimüllerian hormone level, and number of oocytes affect the rate and number of euploid blastocysts in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:777–783.e2.CrossRefPubMed La Marca A, Minasi MG, Sighinolfi G, Greco P, Argento C, Grisendi V, et al. Female age, serum antimüllerian hormone level, and number of oocytes affect the rate and number of euploid blastocysts in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:777–783.e2.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Orris JJ, Taylor TH, Gilchrist JW, Hallowell SV, Glassner MJ, Wininger JD. The utility of embryo banking in order to increase the number of embryos available for preimplantation genetic screening in advanced maternal age patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:729–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Orris JJ, Taylor TH, Gilchrist JW, Hallowell SV, Glassner MJ, Wininger JD. The utility of embryo banking in order to increase the number of embryos available for preimplantation genetic screening in advanced maternal age patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:729–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Effect of embryo banking on U.S. national assisted reproductive technology live birth rates. Yu Y, editor. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154620. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Effect of embryo banking on U.S. national assisted reproductive technology live birth rates. Yu Y, editor. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154620.
19.
go back to reference Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:370–85.CrossRefPubMed Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:370–85.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:170–5.CrossRefPubMed Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:170–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Wu C-H, Chen Y-C, Wu H-H, Yang J-G, Chang Y-J, Tsai H-D. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone predicts ovarian response and cycle outcome in IVF patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:383–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wu C-H, Chen Y-C, Wu H-H, Yang J-G, Chang Y-J, Tsai H-D. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone predicts ovarian response and cycle outcome in IVF patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:383–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Borges E, Braga DPAF, Setti A, de Figueira RC, Iaconelli Júnior A. The predictive value of serum concentrations of anti-Müllerian hormone for oocyte quality, fertilization, and implantation. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21:176–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Borges E, Braga DPAF, Setti A, de Figueira RC, Iaconelli Júnior A. The predictive value of serum concentrations of anti-Müllerian hormone for oocyte quality, fertilization, and implantation. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21:176–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
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;100:100–107.e1.CrossRefPubMed 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;100:100–107.e1.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott RT. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:157.e1–6.CrossRef Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott RT. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:157.e1–6.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Genoff Garzon MC, Rubin LR, Lobel M, Stelling J, Pastore LM. Review of patient decision-making factors and attitudes regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Clin Genet 2018;1–21. Genoff Garzon MC, Rubin LR, Lobel M, Stelling J, Pastore LM. Review of patient decision-making factors and attitudes regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Clin Genet 2018;1–21.
26.
go back to reference Mersereau J, Plunkett B, Cedars M. Preimplantation genetic screening in older women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:592–8.CrossRefPubMed Mersereau J, Plunkett B, Cedars M. Preimplantation genetic screening in older women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:592–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Kang H-J, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits? Fertil Steril. 2016;106:597–602.CrossRefPubMed Kang H-J, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits? Fertil Steril. 2016;106:597–602.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Collins SC, Xu X, Mak W. Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening for women older than 37 undergoing in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:1515–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Collins SC, Xu X, Mak W. Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening for women older than 37 undergoing in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:1515–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, Treff NR, Scott RT. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1217–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, Treff NR, Scott RT. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1217–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Lai H-H, Chuang T-H, Wong L-K, Lee M-J, Hsieh C-L, Wang H-L, et al. Identification of mosaic and segmental aneuploidies by next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic screening can improve clinical outcomes compared to array-comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Cytogenet. 2017;10:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lai H-H, Chuang T-H, Wong L-K, Lee M-J, Hsieh C-L, Wang H-L, et al. Identification of mosaic and segmental aneuploidies by next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic screening can improve clinical outcomes compared to array-comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Cytogenet. 2017;10:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, Wells D, et al. Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case-control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1414–1419.e5.CrossRefPubMed Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, Wells D, et al. Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case-control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1414–1419.e5.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Xu J, Fang R, Chen L, Chen D, Xiao J-P, Yang W, et al. Noninvasive chromosome screening of human embryos by genome sequencing of embryo culture medium for in vitro fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:11907–12.CrossRefPubMed Xu J, Fang R, Chen L, Chen D, Xiao J-P, Yang W, et al. Noninvasive chromosome screening of human embryos by genome sequencing of embryo culture medium for in vitro fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:11907–12.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Feichtinger M, Vaccari E, Carli L, Wallner E, Mädel U, Figl K, et al. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening using array comparative genomic hybridization on spent culture media: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34:583–9.CrossRefPubMed Feichtinger M, Vaccari E, Carli L, Wallner E, Mädel U, Figl K, et al. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening using array comparative genomic hybridization on spent culture media: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34:583–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool
Authors
Randi H. Goldman
Catherine Racowsky
Leslie V. Farland
Janis H. Fox
Santiago Munné
Lia Ribustello
Elizabeth S. Ginsburg
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1275-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 9/2018 Go to the issue