Literature DB >> 17296179

Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using "no result rescue".

Pere Colls1, Tomas Escudero, Natalie Cekleniak, Sasha Sadowy, Jacques Cohen, Santiago Munné.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To improve preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) accuracy by using "no result rescue" (NRR) consisting of the reanalysis of dubious results with additional probes binding to a locus different from the one previously analyzed.
DESIGN: Prospective study of PGD cycles with and without reanalysis of inconclusive results.
SETTING: PGD laboratory. PATIENT(S): Patients undergoing PGD for infertility or Robertsonian translocations. INTERVENTION(S): Nuclei from day 3 biopsied embryos were analyzed with fluorescence in situ hybridization for chromosomes X,Y, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22. When inconclusive results were obtained, NRR was performed. In addition, 100 PGD cycles using NRR were matched to controls according to maternal age, previous failed cycles, number of zygotes, number of eggs, and date of retrieval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Determination of frequency of inconclusive results and error rate after use of additional probes. Comparison of frequency of inconclusive results with prior PGD results when NRR was not used. Assisted reproductive technology outcome was compared between PGD using NRR and controls not using PGD. RESULT(S): After analysis of 34,831 blastomeres from 34,225 embryos, 2,609 blastomeres (7.5%) showed inconclusive results. After NRR on those 2,609 blastomeres, the number of cells with inconclusive results was reduced to 3.1% (P<.001). After the introduction of NRR, fluorescence in situ hybridization errors, measured as discrepancies between the PGD diagnosis and the analysis of the nonreplaced embryo, decreased from 13.6% to 4.7% (P<.001). PGD with NRR significantly improved implantation rates, from 20% to 31%, and reduced spontaneous abortions from 27% to 6%. CONCLUSION(S): The use of NRR has been proven to be a powerful tool to reduce the error rate and the frequency of inconclusive results in PGD, both parameters of high importance to assess quality of PGD laboratories. Indeed, these parameters are two of the few measurable criteria to measure PGD laboratories. In a parallel controlled study, PGD with NRR significantly improved implantation rates and reduced spontaneous abortions, showing that PGD is more efficient in selecting embryos that will reach term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17296179     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  21 in total

Review 1.  PGS-FISH in reproductive medicine and perspective directions for improvement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sandra Zamora; Ana Clavero; M Carmen Gonzalvo; Juan de Dios Luna Del Castillo; Jose Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes; Juan Mozas; Jose Antonio Castilla
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Authors:  Kim Dao Ly; Ashok Agarwal; Zsolt Peter Nagy
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  False positive rate of an arrayCGH platform for single-cell preimplantation genetic screening and subsequent clinical application on day-3.

Authors:  Pere Mir; Lorena Rodrigo; Amparo Mercader; Pilar Buendía; Emilia Mateu; Miguel Milán-Sánchez; Vanessa Peinado; Antonio Pellicer; Jose Remohí; Carlos Simón; Carmen Rubio
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Benefits and drawbacks of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for reciprocal translocations: lessons from a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Paul N Scriven; Frances A Flinter; Yakoub Khalaf; Alison Lashwood; Caroline Mackie Ogilvie
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Healthy live births from transfer of low-mosaicism embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

Authors:  Chun-I Lee; En-Hui Cheng; Maw-Sheng Lee; Pin-Yao Lin; Yi-Chun Chen; Chien-Hong Chen; Lii-Shung Huang; Chun-Chia Huang; Tsung-Hsien Lee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-07-04       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy.

Authors:  Elpida Fragouli; Samer Alfarawati; Katharina Spath; Souraya Jaroudi; Jonas Sarasa; Maria Enciso; Dagan Wells
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 7.  Chromosomal disorders and male infertility.

Authors:  Gary L Harton; Helen G Tempest
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-11-28       Impact factor: 3.285

8.  SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts.

Authors:  L E Northrop; N R Treff; B Levy; R T Scott
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 4.025

9.  SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH.

Authors:  Nathan R Treff; Brynn Levy; Jing Su; Lesley E Northrop; Xin Tao; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 4.025

10.  Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol.

Authors:  D S Johnson; G Gemelos; J Baner; A Ryan; C Cinnioglu; M Banjevic; R Ross; M Alper; B Barrett; J Frederick; D Potter; B Behr; M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-01-24       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.