Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

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

Author: Paul N. Scriven

Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this theoretical study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of aneuploidy screening in a UK setting for every woman aged under the age of 40 years when fresh and vitrified-warmed embryos are transferred one at a time in a first full cycle of assisted conception.

Methods

It is envisaged that a 24-chromosome genetic test for aneuploidy could be used to exclude embryos with an abnormal test result from transfer, or used only to rank embryos with the highest potential to be viable; the effect on cumulative outcome is assessed. The cost associated with one additional live birth event and one clinical miscarriage avoided is estimated, and the time taken to complete a cycle considered. The numbers of individual woman for whom testing is likely to be beneficial or detrimental is also evaluated.

Results

Adding aneuploidy screening to a first treatment cycle is unlikely to result in a higher chance of a live birth event, and can be detrimental for some women. Premature termination of a clinical trial is likely to be biased in favour of genetic testing. Testing is likely to be an expensive way of reducing the chance of clinical miscarriage and shortening treatment time without a substantial reduction in the cost of testing, and is likely to benefit a minority of women. Selecting out embryos is likely to reduce the treatment time for women whether or not they have a baby, whilst ranking embryos only to reduce the time for those that have a child and not for those who need another stimulated cycle.

Conclusions

Adding aneuploidy screening to IVF treatment for women under the age of 40 years is unlikely to be beneficial for most women. To achieve an unbiased assessment of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for aneuploidy, clinical trials need to take account of women who still have embryos available for transfer at the end of the study period. Specifying the proportions of women for whom testing is likely to be beneficial and detrimental may help better inform couples who might be considering adding aneuploidy screening to their treatment cycle.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:839–44.PubMed Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:839–44.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, Hardarson T, Mathur R, Viville S, Vail A, et al. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Hum Reprod. 2017;32:485–91.PubMed Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, Hardarson T, Mathur R, Viville S, Vail A, et al. Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Hum Reprod. 2017;32:485–91.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Griffin DK, Fishel S, Gordon T, Yaron Y, Grifo J, Hourvitz A, Rechitsky S, Elson J, Blazek J, Fiorentino F, et al. Continuing to deliver: the evidence base for pre-implantation genetic screening. BMJ. 2017;356:j752.PubMed Griffin DK, Fishel S, Gordon T, Yaron Y, Grifo J, Hourvitz A, Rechitsky S, Elson J, Blazek J, Fiorentino F, et al. Continuing to deliver: the evidence base for pre-implantation genetic screening. BMJ. 2017;356:j752.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2703–7.PubMed Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2703–7.PubMed
7.
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. 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.
8.
go back to reference Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1846–50.PubMed Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1846–50.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Scott RT Jr, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–5.PubMed Scott RT Jr, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–5.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. 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;101:656–63.PubMed Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. 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;101:656–63.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Chang LJ, Huang CC, Tsai YY, Hung CC, Fang MY, Lin YC, Su YN, Chen SU, Yang YS. Blastocyst biopsy and vitrification are effective for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic diseases. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1435–44.PubMed Chang LJ, Huang CC, Tsai YY, Hung CC, Fang MY, Lin YC, Su YN, Chen SU, Yang YS. Blastocyst biopsy and vitrification are effective for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic diseases. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1435–44.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Hoch JS, Dewa CS. A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis: think incremental not average. Can J Psychiatr. 2008;53:267–74. Hoch JS, Dewa CS. A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis: think incremental not average. Can J Psychiatr. 2008;53:267–74.
18.
go back to reference Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, Giles J, Ferrando M, Cabanillas S, Remohí J, 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.PubMed Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, Giles J, Ferrando M, Cabanillas S, Remohí J, 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.PubMed
19.
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 27;15:33. 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 27;15:33.
20.
go back to reference Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, Ata B, Cohen J, Munné S. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:723–30.PubMed Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, Ata B, Cohen J, Munné S. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:723–30.PubMed
21.
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.PubMed Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:21.PubMed
22.
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.PubMedPubMedCentral Orvieto R. Preimplantation genetic screening- the required RCT that has not yet been carried out. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:35.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
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
Author
Paul N. Scriven
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7827
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-017-0269-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1/2017 Go to the issue