Literature DB >> 18567895

No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy.

Moniek Twisk1, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek, Annemieke Hoek, Maas-Jan Heineman, Fulco van der Veen, Patrick M Bossuyt, Sjoerd Repping, Johanna C Korevaar.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human preimplantation embryos generated through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments show a variable rate of numerical chromosome abnormalities or aneuploidies. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has been designed to screen for aneuploidies in high risk patients, with the aim of improving live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. We assessed whether the effect of PGS on live births rates differs in women of advanced maternal age with variable risks for embryonic aneuploidy, and weighed these effects against the results obtained after IVF/ICSI without PGS.
METHODS: The effect of PGS on live birth rates was compared between groups defined by maternal age, number of previous miscarriages, semen quality, total amount of recombinant FSH (rFSH) administered during ovarian stimulation and total number of top-quality embryos, using data from a randomized controlled trial among women of advanced maternal age (35-41 years).
RESULTS: There was no significant differential effect of PGS in groups based on maternal age (P-value of interaction 0.16), the number of previous miscarriages (P-value of interaction 0.93), semen quality (P-value of interaction 0.26), rFSH dose (P-value of interaction 0.15) or the number of top-quality embryos (P-value of interaction 0.59). Live birth rates after IVF/ICSI with PGS were lower in all groups when compared with live birth rates after IVF/ICSI without PGS.
CONCLUSIONS: The paradigm that the effect of PGS is determined by a woman's risk for embryonic aneuploidy seems incorrect. In fact, PGS has no clinical benefit over standard IVF/ICSI in women of advanced maternal age regardless of their risk for embryonic aneuploidy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18567895     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  20 in total

1.  Twenty-four chromosome FISH in human IVF embryos reveals patterns of post-zygotic chromosome segregation and nuclear organisation.

Authors:  D Ioannou; K G L Fonseka; E J Meershoek; A R Thornhill; A Abogrein; M Ellis; D K Griffin
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 5.239

2.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for SHOX-related haploinsufficiency in conjunction with trisomy 21 detection by molecular analysis.

Authors:  Gheona Altarescu; Orit Reish; Paul Renbaum; Ester Kasterstein; Dvorah Komarovsky; Alisa Komsky; Orna Bern; Dvorah Strassburger; Ephrat Levy-Lahad; Raphael Ron-El
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages.

Authors:  Martin D Keltz; Mario Vega; Ido Sirota; Matthew Lederman; Erin L Moshier; Eric Gonzales; Daniel Stein
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 4.  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 5.  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

6.  Pregnancy and child developmental outcomes after preimplantation genetic screening: a meta-analytic and systematic review.

Authors:  Misaki N Natsuaki; Laura M Dimler
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.764

7.  The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool.

Authors:  Randi H Goldman; Catherine Racowsky; Leslie V Farland; Janis H Fox; Santiago Munné; Lia Ribustello; Elizabeth S Ginsburg
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  One thousand seventy-eight autologous IVF cycles in women 45 years and older: the largest single-center cohort to date.

Authors:  Vinay Gunnala; Mohamad Irani; Alexis Melnick; Zev Rosenwaks; Steven Spandorfer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Analysis of pronuclear zygote configurations in 459 clinical pregnancies obtained with assisted reproductive technique procedures.

Authors:  Alessia Nicoli; Francesco Capodanno; Lucia Moscato; Ilaria Rondini; Maria T Villani; Antonella Tuzio; Giovanni B La Sala
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 5.211

10.  What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate.

Authors:  Evelyne Vanneste; Thierry Voet; Cindy Melotte; Sophie Debrock; Karen Sermon; Catherine Staessen; Inge Liebaers; Jean-Pierre Fryns; Thomas D'Hooghe; Joris R Vermeesch
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.