Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(8):839–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MPT, Frosch D, Legare F, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ. 2012;344:e256. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Turner P, Williams C. Informed consent: patients listen and read, but what information do they retain? N Z Med J. 2001;115(1164):U218.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson JL, Dodman S, Kopelman M, Fleming A. Patient information recall in a rheumatology clinic. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979;18:244–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ley P. Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1979;18:245–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:280–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, 550 16th Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158-2519, USA

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

Authors
  1. Molly M. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Flor Juarez-Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Molly Dunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Jason Okamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcelle I. Cedars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mitchell P. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Molly M. Quinn.

Ethics declarations

The study was approved by the UCSF Committee on Human Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quinn, M.M., Juarez-Hernandez, F., Dunn, M. et al. Decision-making surrounding the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy reveals misunderstanding regarding its benefit. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 2155–2159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1337-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1337-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation