Literature DB >> 21872229

Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening in the United States: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group paper.

Elizabeth S Ginsburg1, Valerie L Baker, Catherine Racowsky, Ethan Wantman, James Goldfarb, Judy E Stern.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively report Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member program usage of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for diagnosis of specific conditions, and preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy (PGS).
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: United States SART cohort data. PATIENT(S): Women undergoing a PGT cycle in which at least one embryo underwent biopsy. INTERVENTION(S): PGT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): PGT use, indications, and delivery rates. RESULT(S): Of 190,260 fresh, nondonor assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles reported to SART CORS in 2007-2008, 8,337 included PGT. Of 6,971 cycles with a defined indication, 1,382 cycles were for genetic diagnosis, 3,645 for aneuploidy screening (PGS), 527 for translocation, and 1,417 for elective sex election. Although the total number of fresh, autologous cycles increased by 3.6% from 2007 to 2008, the percentage of cycles with PGT decreased by 5.8% (4,293 in 2007 and 4,044 in 2008). As a percentage of fresh, nondonor ART cycles, use dropped from 4.6% (4,293/93,433) in 2007 to 4.2% (4,044/96,827) in 2008. The primary indication for PGT was PGS: cycles performed for this indication decreased (-8.0%). PGD use for single-gene defects (+3.2%), elective sex selection (+5.3%), and translocation analysis (+0.5%) increased. PGT usage varied significantly by geographical region. CONCLUSION(S): PGT usage in the United States decreased between 2007 and 2008 owing to a decrease in PGS. Use of elective sex selection increased. High transfer cancellation rates correlated with reduced live-birth rates for some PGT indications.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21872229     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1139

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Next-generation molecular diagnosis: single-cell sequencing from bench to bedside.

Authors:  Wanjun Zhu; Xiao-Yan Zhang; Sadie L Marjani; Jialing Zhang; Wengeng Zhang; Shixiu Wu; Xinghua Pan
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 9.261

2.  Literacy assessment of preimplantation genetic patient education materials exceed national reading levels.

Authors:  Macy L Early; Priyanka Kumar; Arik V Marcell; Cathleen Lawson; Mindy Christianson; Lydia H Pecker
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  The association between quality of supernumerary embryos in a cohort and implantation potential of the transferred blastocyst.

Authors:  Phillip A Romanski; Randi H Goldman; Leslie V Farland; Serene S Srouji; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA.

Authors:  Valerie L Baker
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Assisted Reproductive Technology and Birth Defects Among Liveborn Infants in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan, 2000-2010.

Authors:  Sheree L Boulet; Russell S Kirby; Jennita Reefhuis; Yujia Zhang; Saswati Sunderam; Bruce Cohen; Dana Bernson; Glenn Copeland; Marie A Bailey; Denise J Jamieson; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 16.193

6.  Justice in the context of family balancing.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Sci Technol Human Values       Date:  2013-03-01

7.  In vitro fertilization and risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: associations with treatment parameters.

Authors:  Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Michael L Eisenberg; Caitriona Callan; Beverley J Botting; Allan Pacey; Alastair G Sutcliffe; Valerie L Baker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011-2012.

Authors:  Jeani Chang; Sheree L Boulet; Gary Jeng; Lisa Flowers; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Embryo quality, ploidy, and transfer outcomes in male versus female blastocysts.

Authors:  Christopher P Moutos; William G Kearns; Sarah E Farmer; Jon P Richards; Antonio F Saad; John R Crochet
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.357

10.  Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Minghao Chen; Shiyou Wei; Junyan Hu; Song Quan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.