PURPOSE: To determine if Aneuploidy Risk Classification Models are predictive of euploidy/aneuploidy amongst IVF facilities. METHODS: We retrospectively applied key time lapse imaging events of embryos (Campbell et al.[5, 6]) to stratify embryos into 3 groups: low, medium and high risk of aneuploidy. The actual ploidy results (from array comparative genomic hybridization) were compared with expectations [5, 6]. Sources of variability in morphokinetic parameters were determined using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The model failed to segregate euploid embryos from aneuploid embryos cultured at our facility. Further analysis indicated that the variability of embryos among patients was too great to allow selection of euploid embryos based on simple morphokinetic thresholds. Clinical selection of embryos based on morphokinetics alone is unlikely to identify euploid embryos accurately for transfer or yield higher rates of live delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of non-invasive morphokinetics is unlikely to discriminate aneuploid from euploid embryos. Further, it does not approach the accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening with array comparative genomic hybridization.
PURPOSE: To determine if Aneuploidy Risk Classification Models are predictive of euploidy/aneuploidy amongst IVF facilities. METHODS: We retrospectively applied key time lapse imaging events of embryos (Campbell et al.[5, 6]) to stratify embryos into 3 groups: low, medium and high risk of aneuploidy. The actual ploidy results (from array comparative genomic hybridization) were compared with expectations [5, 6]. Sources of variability in morphokinetic parameters were determined using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The model failed to segregate euploid embryos from aneuploid embryos cultured at our facility. Further analysis indicated that the variability of embryos among patients was too great to allow selection of euploid embryos based on simple morphokinetic thresholds. Clinical selection of embryos based on morphokinetics alone is unlikely to identify euploid embryos accurately for transfer or yield higher rates of live delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of non-invasive morphokinetics is unlikely to discriminate aneuploid from euploid embryos. Further, it does not approach the accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening with array comparative genomic hybridization.
Authors: Joe Conaghan; Alice A Chen; Susan P Willman; Kristen Ivani; Philip E Chenette; Robert Boostanfar; Valerie L Baker; G David Adamson; Mary E Abusief; Marina Gvakharia; Kevin E Loewke; Shehua Shen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Gary L Harton; Santiago Munné; Mark Surrey; Jamie Grifo; Brian Kaplan; David H McCulloh; Darren K Griffin; Dagan Wells Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 7.329