Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 3/2020

01-03-2020 | Preimplantation Genetic Diagnostics | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Euploid rates among oocyte donors: is there an optimal age for donation?

Authors: Luis R. Hoyos, Connie Y. Cheng, Kathleen Brennan, Gary Hubert, Brandon Wang, Richard P. Buyalos, Molly Quinn, Mousa Shamonki

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To examine cycle blastocyst euploid rates among age subgroups of oocyte donors.

Methods

Retrospective cohort analysis of ova donation in vitro fertilization cycles (OD-IVF) for which trophectoderm biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) or next generation gene sequencing (NGS) was employed between January 2015 and December 2018 in a single high-volume fertility center.

Results

Compared to oocyte donors age 26–30, oocyte donors age ≤ 25 had similar cycle blastocyst euploid rates (80 [66.7, 87.5]%, vs. 75 [62.5, 87.5]%, median [IQR], p = 0.07), blastocyst formation rates (66.7 [50, 75]%, vs. 62.5 [52, 75]%, p = 0.55), and number of retrieved oocytes (29 [23, 37] vs. 27 [20, 35], p = 0.18). Age of oocyte donor from 18 to 34 was not correlated with cycle blastocyst euploid rate.

Conclusion

Oocyte donors age ≤ 25 had similar cycle blastocyst euploid rates, blastocyst formation rates, and number of retrieved oocytes compared to donors age 26–30. There was no correlation between cycle blastocyst euploid rates and age of the oocyte donor from 18 to 34 years. Given the lack of significant age-related change in cycle blastocyst euploid rates, our data support existing practices which do not favor a specific age subgroup of young oocyte donors.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Kawwass JF, Monsour M, Crawford S, Kissin DM, Session DR, Kulkarni AD, et al. Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2426–34.PubMedPubMedCentral Kawwass JF, Monsour M, Crawford S, Kissin DM, Session DR, Kulkarni AD, et al. Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000-2010. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2426–34.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference American College of, O., P. Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic, and C. Practice. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633–4. American College of, O., P. Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic, and C. Practice. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633–4.
5.
go back to reference Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive, M. and T. Practice Committee of Society for assisted reproductive, Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):47–62. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive, M. and T. Practice Committee of Society for assisted reproductive, Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):47–62.
6.
go back to reference Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive, M. et al. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429–436. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive, M. et al. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429–436.
7.
go back to reference Barad DH, et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):576 e1–8.CrossRef Barad DH, et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):576 e1–8.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wu LH, et al. Ivf outcomes are paradoxically poorer under age 25. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):S264.CrossRef Wu LH, et al. Ivf outcomes are paradoxically poorer under age 25. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):S264.CrossRef
9.
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(3):656–63 e1.CrossRef 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(3):656–63 e1.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(3):231–45.CrossRef Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(3):231–45.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gardner, D.K.a.S., WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts, in Towards reproductive certainty. In: Jansen DMR, Editor. Parthenon publishing: Carnforth; 1999. p. 378–388. Gardner, D.K.a.S., WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts, in Towards reproductive certainty. In: Jansen DMR, Editor. Parthenon publishing: Carnforth; 1999. p. 378–388.
12.
go back to reference Haddad G, Deng M, Wang CT, Witz C, Williams D, Griffith J, et al. Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from donated eggs and the necessity of the embryos for aneuploidy screening. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(6):999–1006.CrossRef Haddad G, Deng M, Wang CT, Witz C, Williams D, Griffith J, et al. Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from donated eggs and the necessity of the embryos for aneuploidy screening. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(6):999–1006.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Masbou AK, et al. A Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Donor Egg Single Embryo Transfers With and Without Preimplantation Genetic Testing. Reprod Sci. 2018:1933719118820474. Masbou AK, et al. A Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Donor Egg Single Embryo Transfers With and Without Preimplantation Genetic Testing. Reprod Sci. 2018:1933719118820474.
14.
go back to reference Humphries LA, Dodge LE, Kennedy EB, Humm KC, Hacker MR, Sakkas D. Is younger better? Donor age less than 25 does not predict more favorable outcomes after in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(8):1631–7.CrossRef Humphries LA, Dodge LE, Kennedy EB, Humm KC, Hacker MR, Sakkas D. Is younger better? Donor age less than 25 does not predict more favorable outcomes after in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(8):1631–7.CrossRef
15.
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(1):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(1):24.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Rubio C, Mercader A, Alamá P, Lizán C, Rodrigo L, Labarta E, et al. Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2290–7.CrossRef Rubio C, Mercader A, Alamá P, Lizán C, Rodrigo L, Labarta E, et al. Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2290–7.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, van Opstal D, Beckers NG, Verhoeff A, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(4):980–8.CrossRef Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, van Opstal D, Beckers NG, Verhoeff A, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(4):980–8.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Werner MM, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Forman EJ, et al. Embryonic aneuploidy rates are equivalent in natural cycles and gonadotropin-stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):670–6.CrossRef Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Werner MM, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Forman EJ, et al. Embryonic aneuploidy rates are equivalent in natural cycles and gonadotropin-stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):670–6.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Morin SJ, et al. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patients <38 years old: a quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance. Hum Reprod. 2018. Morin SJ, et al. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patients <38 years old: a quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance. Hum Reprod. 2018.
20.
go back to reference Mazzilli R, et al. Effect of the male factor on the clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection combined with preimplantation aneuploidy testing: observational longitudinal cohort study of 1,219 consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(6):961–72 e3.CrossRef Mazzilli R, et al. Effect of the male factor on the clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection combined with preimplantation aneuploidy testing: observational longitudinal cohort study of 1,219 consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(6):961–72 e3.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kort JD, McCoy R, Demko Z, Lathi RB. Are blastocyst aneuploidy rates different between fertile and infertile populations? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(3):403–8.CrossRef Kort JD, McCoy R, Demko Z, Lathi RB. Are blastocyst aneuploidy rates different between fertile and infertile populations? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(3):403–8.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Munne S, et al. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):743–9.CrossRef Munne S, et al. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):743–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hassold T, Hall H, Hunt P. The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16 Spec No. 2:R203–8. Hassold T, Hall H, Hunt P. The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16 Spec No. 2:R203–8.
24.
go back to reference Bishop LA, et al. IVF trigger type does not impact aneuploidy rates in PGS embryos. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e332–3.CrossRef Bishop LA, et al. IVF trigger type does not impact aneuploidy rates in PGS embryos. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e332–3.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, Fischer CP, Forman EJ. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(1):153–7.CrossRef Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, Fischer CP, Forman EJ. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(1):153–7.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hernandez-Nieto CA, et al. Aneuploidy rates are unaffected by choice of trigger medication in human IVF-ET cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e223–4. Hernandez-Nieto CA, et al. Aneuploidy rates are unaffected by choice of trigger medication in human IVF-ET cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e223–4.
27.
go back to reference Huang J, Yan L, Lu S, Zhao N, Xie XS, Qiao J. Validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1532–6.CrossRef Huang J, Yan L, Lu S, Zhao N, Xie XS, Qiao J. Validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1532–6.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1375–82.CrossRef Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1375–82.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Lai HH, 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.CrossRef Lai HH, 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.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Rubio C, et al. Clinical application of embryo aneuploidy testing by NGS. Biol Reprod. 2019. Rubio C, et al. Clinical application of embryo aneuploidy testing by NGS. Biol Reprod. 2019.
Metadata
Title
Euploid rates among oocyte donors: is there an optimal age for donation?
Authors
Luis R. Hoyos
Connie Y. Cheng
Kathleen Brennan
Gary Hubert
Brandon Wang
Richard P. Buyalos
Molly Quinn
Mousa Shamonki
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01694-w

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 3/2020 Go to the issue