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

01-03-2020 | Preimplantation Genetic Diagnostics | Commentary

A tale of two studies: now is no longer the best of times for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)

Author: Paul N Scriven

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

Login to get access

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) does not create normal embryos, but selecting a viable embryo for a fresh transfer has the potential to deliver an extra effect for live birth from a stimulated cycle by evading the attrition associated with embryo cryopreservation. Improved genetic tests are now available for selecting viable embryos; however, current embryo cryopreservation techniques also have a superior survival rate, which means it is now possible to transfer most morphologically suitable embryos from a stimulated cycle one at a time. The cumulative live birth rate from a stimulated cycle is now unlikely to be superior compared with morphological assessment alone, with any benefit likely to be associated with a reduction in the risk of miscarriage and the time to pregnancy. This communication offers a perspective on the likely benefit and disbenefit of PGT-A based on the outcome of modern-day clinical studies. Caution should be advised regarding offering PGT-A to every woman. Quantifying the likely miscarriage benefit and live birth disbenefit for an appropriate patient group may help to better inform couples who might be considering adding aneuploidy screening to their treatment cycle.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening and cumulative reproductive outcome: transfer strategy, diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AIMS Genetics. 2016;3:177–95.CrossRef Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening and cumulative reproductive outcome: transfer strategy, diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AIMS Genetics. 2016;3:177–95.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Orvieto R. Preimplantation genetic screening- the required RCT that has not yet been carried out. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:35.CrossRef Orvieto R. Preimplantation genetic screening- the required RCT that has not yet been carried out. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:35.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: insights from a virtual trial for women under the age of 40 when transferring embryos one at a time. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:49.CrossRef Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: insights from a virtual trial for women under the age of 40 when transferring embryos one at a time. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:49.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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;15:33.CrossRef 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;15:33.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:228–30.CrossRef Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:228–30.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Ivakhnenko V, Evsikov S, Wolf G, White M, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by the first- and second-polar body FISH analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:285–9.CrossRef Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Ivakhnenko V, Evsikov S, Wolf G, White M, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by the first- and second-polar body FISH analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:285–9.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Munné S, Magli C, Bahçe M, Fung J, Legator M, Morrison L, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of the aneuploidies most commonly found in spontaneous abortions and live births: XY, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22. Prenat Diagn. 1998;18:1459–66.CrossRef Munné S, Magli C, Bahçe M, Fung J, Legator M, Morrison L, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of the aneuploidies most commonly found in spontaneous abortions and live births: XY, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22. Prenat Diagn. 1998;18:1459–66.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Munné S, Cohen J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:842–55.CrossRef Munné S, Cohen J. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:842–55.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Scriven PN, Bossuyt PM. Diagnostic accuracy: theoretical models for preimplantation genetic testing of a single nucleus using the fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2622–8.CrossRef Scriven PN, Bossuyt PM. Diagnostic accuracy: theoretical models for preimplantation genetic testing of a single nucleus using the fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2622–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:454–66.CrossRef Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:454–66.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55.PubMed Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Scriven PN. Active selection and single embryo transfer: insights from virtual trials. EMJ Repro Health. 2018;4:108–15. Scriven PN. Active selection and single embryo transfer: insights from virtual trials. EMJ Repro Health. 2018;4:108–15.
13.
go back to reference Schattman GL. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: it’s déjà vu all over again! Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1046–7.CrossRef Schattman GL. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: it’s déjà vu all over again! Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1046–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, Goossens V, Altarescu G, Bonduelle M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1767–76.CrossRef Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, Goossens V, Altarescu G, Bonduelle M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1767–76.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1122–9.CrossRef Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1122–9.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lee E, Chambers GM, Hale L, Illingworth P, Wilton L. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) cumulative live birth rates following preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy (PGD-A) or morphological assessment of embryos: a cohort analysis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;58:525–32.CrossRef Lee E, Chambers GM, Hale L, Illingworth P, Wilton L. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) cumulative live birth rates following preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy (PGD-A) or morphological assessment of embryos: a cohort analysis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;58:525–32.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lee E, Costello MF, Botha WC, Illingworth P, Chambers GM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for up to three complete assisted reproductive technology cycles in women of advanced maternal age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:573–9.CrossRef Lee E, Costello MF, Botha WC, Illingworth P, Chambers GM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for up to three complete assisted reproductive technology cycles in women of advanced maternal age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:573–9.CrossRef
18.
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;5:24.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;5:24.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sato T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozawa F, Yamamoto T, Kato T, Kurahashi H, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:2340–8.CrossRef Sato T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozawa F, Yamamoto T, Kato T, Kurahashi H, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:2340–8.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–9.CrossRef Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–9.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Scriven PN. The usefulness of preimplantation genetic testing for chromosome aneuploidy informed by a randomised controlled trial. OBM Genetics. 2019;3:6.CrossRef Scriven PN. The usefulness of preimplantation genetic testing for chromosome aneuploidy informed by a randomised controlled trial. OBM Genetics. 2019;3:6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A tale of two studies: now is no longer the best of times for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)
Author
Paul N Scriven
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/s10815-020-01712-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

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