Literature DB >> 23725804

Comprehensive chromosome screening alters traditional morphology-based embryo selection: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cycles of planned fresh euploid blastocyst transfer.

Eric J Forman1, Kathleen M Upham, Michael Cheng, Tian Zhao, Kathleen H Hong, Nathan R Treff, Richard T Scott.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine how often trophectoderm biopsy and rapid, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) alters clinical management by resulting in the transfer of a different embryo than would have been chosen by traditional day 5 morphology-based criteria.
DESIGN: Prospective.
SETTING: Academic center for reproductive medicine. PATIENT(S): Infertile couples (n = 100; mean age 35 ± 4 years) with at least two blastocysts suitable for biopsy on day 5. INTERVENTION(S): Prior to trophectoderm biopsy for CCS the embryologist identified which embryo would have been selected for traditional day 5 elective single ET. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The risk of aneuploidy in the embryos that would have been selected on day 5 was calculated and compared with the aneuploidy rate of the cohort of all embryos that underwent CCS testing. The aneuploidy risk was compared between age groups. RESULT(S): After quantitative PCR-based CCS, 22% (95% confidence interval 15%-31%) of the embryos selected by day 5 morphology were aneuploid, which was lower than the 32% aneuploidy rate of the cohort. Patients ≥35 years had a higher risk of an aneuploid blastocyst being selected by morphology than those <35 years old (31% vs. 14%). Among patients who had selection altered by CCS, 74% (14/19) delivered, including 77% (10/13) after elective single ET. Most patients (77%) had an additional euploid blastocyst vitrified for future use. CONCLUSION(S): The CCS results alter embryo selection due to the presence of aneuploidy in embryos with optimal day 5 morphology. Excellent outcomes were obtained when CCS-based selection was different than morphology-based selection.
Copyright © 2013 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Single embryo transfer; aneuploidy; comprehensive chromosome screening; eSET; preimplantation genetic screening

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23725804     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.043

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening.

Authors:  Lina Lu; Bo Lv; Kevin Huang; Zhigang Xue; Xianmin Zhu; Guoping Fan
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for inherited neurological disorders.

Authors:  Ilan Tur-Kaspa; Roohi Jeelani; P Murali Doraiswamy
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 42.937

3.  Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience.

Authors:  Michael P Diamond; Vaishali Suraj; Erica J Behnke; Xinli Yang; Marlane J Angle; Jaclyn C Lambe-Steinmiller; Rachel Watterson; Kelly Athayde Wirka; Alice A Chen; Shehua Shen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  The impact of patient preselection on reported IVF outcomes.

Authors:  Norbert Gleicher; Vitaly A Kushnir; David H Barad
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  The number of biopsied trophectoderm cells may affect pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  Luis Guzman; D Nuñez; R López; N Inoue; J Portella; F Vizcarra; L Noriega-Portella; L Noriega-Hoces; S Munné
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening for women older than 37 undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Stephen C Collins; Xiao Xu; Winifred Mak
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 7.  The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists.

Authors:  Karen Sermon; Antonio Capalbo; Jacques Cohen; Edith Coonen; Martine De Rycke; Anick De Vos; Joy Delhanty; Francesco Fiorentino; Norbert Gleicher; Georg Griesinger; Jamie Grifo; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Georgia Kokkali; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; David Meldrum; Marcos Meseguer; Markus Montag; Santiago Munné; Laura Rienzi; Carmen Rubio; Katherine Scott; Richard Scott; Carlos Simon; Jason Swain; Nathan Treff; Filippo Ubaldi; Rita Vassena; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Willem Verpoest; Dagan Wells; Joep Geraedts
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.025

8.  The endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed euploid blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial comparing clinical results from natural modified cycle and exogenous hormone stimulation with GnRH agonist.

Authors:  Ermanno Greco; Katarzyna Litwicka; Cristiana Arrivi; Maria Teresa Varricchio; Alina Caragia; Alessia Greco; Maria Giulia Minasi; Francesco Fiorentino
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 3.357

9.  Comparative genomic hybridization selection of blastocysts for repeated implantation failure treatment: a pilot study.

Authors:  Ermanno Greco; Sara Bono; Alessandra Ruberti; Anna Maria Lobascio; Pierfrancesco Greco; Anil Biricik; Letizia Spizzichino; Alessia Greco; Jan Tesarik; Maria Giulia Minasi; Francesco Fiorentino
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-03-23       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Current status of comprehensive chromosome screening for elective single-embryo transfer.

Authors:  Ming-Yih Wu; Kuang-Han Chao; Chin-Der Chen; Li-Jung Chang; Shee-Uan Chen; Yu-Shih Yang
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2014-06-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.