Literature DB >> 22305103

Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study.

Richard T Scott1, Kathleen Ferry, Jing Su, Xin Tao, Katherine Scott, Nathan R Treff.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine both the negative and positive predictive values of comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) results for clinical outcome.
DESIGN: Data obtained from two prospective, double-blinded, nonselection studies.
SETTING: Academic center for reproductive medicine. PATIENT(S): One hundred forty-six couples with a mean maternal age of 34.0 ± 4.4 years and a mean paternal age of 37.3 ± 5.8 years. INTERVENTION(S): Embryo biopsy for DNA fingerprinting and aneuploidy assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Failure rate of embryos predicted aneuploid by CCS (negative predictive value) and success rate of embryos predicted euploid by CCS (positive predictive value). RESULT(S): A total of 255 IVF-derived human embryos were cultured and selected for transfer without influence from CCS analysis. Embryos were biopsied before transfer, including 113 blastomeres at the cleavage stage and 142 trophectoderm biopsies at the blastocyst stage. Comprehensive chromosome screening was highly predictive of clinical outcome, with 96% of aneuploid predicted embryos failing to sustain implantation and 41% sustained implantation from embryos predicted to be euploid. CONCLUSION(S): These nonselection data provide the first prospective, blinded, clinical study directly measuring the predictive value of aneuploidy screening for clinical outcome. The clinical error rate of an aneuploidy designation is very low (4%), whereas implantation and delivery rates of euploid embryos are increased relative to the entire cohort of transferred embryos.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22305103     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.104

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


  71 in total

1.  A greater number of euploid blastocysts in a given cohort predicts excellent outcomes in single embryo transfer cycles.

Authors:  Scott Morin; Katherine Melzer-Ross; David McCulloh; Jamie Grifo; Santiago Munné
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Cumulus-corona gene expression analysis combined with morphological embryo scoring in single embryo transfer cycles increases live birth after fresh transfer and decreases time to pregnancy.

Authors:  T Adriaenssens; I Van Vaerenbergh; W Coucke; I Segers; G Verheyen; E Anckaert; M De Vos; J Smitz
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Mosaic embryo transfer after oocyte in vitro maturation in combination with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)-first report of a euploid live birth.

Authors:  Naomi Inoue; Rosmary Lopez; Andrea Delgado; Denisse Nuñez; Jimmy Portella; Luis Noriega-Hoces; Luis Guzmán
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference?

Authors:  Susan M Maxwell; Katherine Melzer-Ross; David H McCulloh; James A Grifo
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells.

Authors:  Jin Huang; Liying Yan; Sijia Lu; Nan Zhao; Jie Qiao
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Comprehensive pre-implantation genetic screening: ethical reflection urgently needed.

Authors:  Kristien Hens; Wybo Dondorp; Joep Geraedts; Guido de Wert
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 7.  A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice.

Authors:  Norbert Gleicher; David H Barad
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  IUI and uterine lavage of in vivo-produced blastocysts for PGT purposes: is it a technically and ethically reasonable perspective? Is it actually needed?

Authors:  Lucia De Santis; Danilo Cimadomo; Antonio Capalbo; Cinzia Di Pietro; Daniela Zuccarello; Attilio Anastasi; Emanuele Licata; Catello Scarica; Laura Sosa Fernandez; Francesca Gioia Klinger
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Association between growth dynamics, morphological parameters, the chromosomal status of the blastocysts, and clinical outcomes in IVF PGS cycles with single embryo transfer.

Authors:  Oleksii O Barash; Kristen A Ivani; Susan P Willman; Evan M Rosenbluth; Deborah S Wachs; Mary D Hinckley; Sara Pittenger Reid; Louis N Weckstein
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  Pre-implantation genetic testing: decisional factors to accept or decline among in vitro fertilization patients.

Authors:  Brandy Lamb; Erin Johnson; Leslie Francis; Melinda Fagan; Naomi Riches; Isabella Canada; Alena Wilson; Amber Mathiesen; Maya Sabatello; Shawn Gurtcheff; Erica Johnstone; Erin Rothwell
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 3.412

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.