Literature DB >> 31114858

The clinicians´ dilemma with mosaicism-an insight from inner cell mass biopsies.

B Lawrenz1,2, I El Khatib3, A Liñán3, A Bayram3, A Arnanz3, R Chopra4, N De Munck3, H M Fatemi1.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How reliable are cleavage stage and trophectoderm (TE) biopsies compared to inner cell mass (ICM) biopsies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The reliability of TE biopsy compared to ICM biopsy is almost perfect, but only substantial between cleavage stage biopsy and ICM biopsy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: One of the prevailing reasons for implantation failure is presumed to be chromosomal aneuploidy in human preimplantation embryos. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) has been introduced into assisted reproduction in an effort to increase pregnancy rates. Increasing evidence indicates that genetic results obtained following blastomere or TEbiopsy may not accurately reflect the true genetic status of the embryo due to the presence of embryonic mosaicism, and therefore the reliability of PGT is highly controversial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was an observational descriptive study, performed in a private infertility centre from August 2016 to January 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: The mean female age was 33.9 years, ranging from 24 to 46 years, and the mean number of biopsied embryos per couple was 2.2 (range 1-7 embryos). Blastomere biopsies had been performed at cleavage stage on Day 3 (D3) due to the turnover time of genetic testing and the inability to cryopreserve embryos in accordance with the local law governing ART. To confirm the genetic results in embryos not chosen for transfer, additional biopsies of the TE at blastocyst stage (BLASTO-TE) as well as of the ICM (BLASTO-ICM) were performed on D5. Only surplus blastocysts, which had not been selected for transfer and were not cryopreserved in accordance with the law governing ART, had been included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Comparison of all biopsies (D3/BLASTO-ICM/BLASTO-TE) per embryo demonstrated that 50 (59.5%) out of 84 embryos showed concordance in all three results (= full concordance). Thirty-four (40.4%) embryos had at least two discordant results between the three biopsies, regardless of whether the embryo diagnosis (aneuploid/euploid) was discordant or not, or in aneuploid embryos, whether the chromosomal patterns were inconsistent. Nine (= 10.7%) embryos had complete discordance between all three biopsies. False positive results between D3/BLASTO-TE, D3/BLASTO-ICM and BLASTO-TE/BLASTO-ICM were 26.4%/30.2% and 7.5%, respectively, while the Kappa agreement between the different approaches was 0.647, 0.553 and 0.857, respectively. Therefore the reliability of D3/BLASTO-TE, D3/BLASTO-ICM and BLASTO-TE/BLASTO-ICM can be interpreted as substantial, as moderate and as almost perfect. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The limitation of this study is the possible bias in the concordance/discordance rate because embryos that had been selected for transfer did not undergo biopsy on D5. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The obvious discordance between the three different approaches for PGT-A underlines the limitations of genetic testing and highlights the importance of ongoing research in order to improve the accuracy of PGT-A results. Until then reproductive specialists will continue to make challenging decisions on whether to transfer or discard an embryo in light of current evidence questioning the reliability of genetic results. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Igenomix. The funder provided support in the form of salary for R.C. The co-author R.C. is an employee of Igenomix. She participated in the blinded analysis of the samples; however the final data collection and statistical analysis of the results, as well as the decision to publish, was taken by B.L, I.E. and H.F. The authors B.L., I.E., A.L., A.B., A.A., N.D. and H.F. have no competing interests. The funder did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The commercial affiliation of R.C. did not play any role in the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of IVIRMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE (Research Ethics Committee IVI-MEREFA009a/2017).
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cleavage stage biopsy; inner cell mass biopsy; preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; reliability; trophectoderm biopsy

Year:  2019        PMID: 31114858     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez055

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


  16 in total

1.  The reproducibility of trophectoderm biopsies in euploid, aneuploid, and mosaic embryos using independently verified next-generation sequencing (NGS): a pilot study.

Authors:  Nidhee M Sachdev; David H McCulloh; Yael Kramer; David Keefe; James A Grifo
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  From contemplation to classification of chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos.

Authors:  Igor N Lebedev; Daria I Zhigalina
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Clinical re-biopsy of segmental gains-the primary source of preimplantation genetic testing false positives.

Authors:  Steve Grkovic; Maria V Traversa; Mark Livingstone; Steven J McArthur
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Incidence, Origin, and Predictive Model for the Detection and Clinical Management of Segmental Aneuploidies in Human Embryos.

Authors:  Laura Girardi; Munevver Serdarogullari; Cristina Patassini; Maurizio Poli; Marco Fabiani; Silvia Caroselli; Onder Coban; Necati Findikli; Fazilet Kubra Boynukalin; Mustafa Bahceci; Rupali Chopra; Rita Canipari; Danilo Cimadomo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Ubaldi; Eva Hoffmann; Carmen Rubio; Carlos Simon; Antonio Capalbo
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Embryonic Cell-free DNA in Spent Culture Medium: A Non-invasive Tool for Aneuploidy Screening of the Corresponding Embryos.

Authors:  Afrodite Sialakouma; Ioannis Karakasiliotis; Vaia Ntala; Nikolaos Nikolettos; Byron Asimakopoulos
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.155

6.  PGT-A: who and when? Α systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Authors:  Mara Simopoulou; Konstantinos Sfakianoudis; Evangelos Maziotis; Petroula Tsioulou; Sokratis Grigoriadis; Anna Rapani; Polina Giannelou; Marilena Asimakopoulou; Georgia Kokkali; Amelia Pantou; Konstantinos Nikolettos; Nikolaos Vlahos; Konstantinos Pantos
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 3.357

7.  Segmental duplications and monosomies are linked to in vitro developmental arrest.

Authors:  N De Munck; A Bayram; I Elkhatib; A Liñán; A Arnanz; L Melado; B Lawrenz; M H Fatemi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 3.357

8.  Chromosomal mosaicism: Origins and clinical implications in preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Brynn Levy; Eva R Hoffmann; Rajiv C McCoy; Francesca R Grati
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation.

Authors:  Simone Cornelisse; Miriam Zagers; Elena Kostova; Kathrin Fleischer; Madelon van Wely; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-09-08

Review 10.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: A review of published blastocyst reanalysis concordance data.

Authors:  Diego Marin; Jia Xu; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-10-04       Impact factor: 3.050

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.