Literature DB >> 32100030

Hidden in plain sight: the overstated benefits and underestimated losses of potential implantations associated with advertised PGT-A success rates.

Richard J Paulson1.   

Abstract

The utilization of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) has understandable intuitive appeal in reassuring the clinician that 'everything possible' has been done to assure the birth of a healthy baby. Whereas the development of the PGT-A technology is still in a relatively early stage, great strides have nevertheless been made in the understanding of the genetics of the preimplantation human embryo. The problem lies not in the progress that has been achieved, but rather, in the reality that PGT-A is being actively marketed as a mature technology. Those that market the technology overstate its benefits and underestimate the losses of potential implantations that are the consequence of the practice of PGT-A. The implication is that the PGT-A technology is accurate, has minimal errors and is ready to be applied to every case of IVF. This approach is not evidence-based. Substantial losses of potential implantations are even evident in the analysis of the numbers presented by marketing materials themselves. In order to provide accurate, evidence-based counseling for patients undergoing IVF, we need to apply an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny to the data that are available and apply PGT-A selectively to those cases in which the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.
© The Author(s) 2020. 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:  PGT-A; PGT-A calculation; efficiency of PGT-A; preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32100030     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez280

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  On the reproductive capabilities of aneuploid human preimplantation embryos.

Authors:  Antonio Capalbo; Maurizio Poli; Chaim Jalas; Eric J Forman; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 11.043

2.  Trends and Outcomes for Preimplantation Genetic Testing in the United States, 2014-2018.

Authors:  Heather S Hipp; Sara Crawford; Sheree Boulet; James Toner; Amy A E Sparks; Jennifer F Kawwass
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 157.335

3.  Polygenic risk scoring of human embryos: a qualitative study of media coverage.

Authors:  Tiny Pagnaer; Maria Siermann; Pascal Borry; Olga Tšuiko
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-09-18       Impact factor: 2.834

4.  Cumulative live birth rate in women aged ≤37 years after in vitro fertilization with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Rachel B Mejia; Emily A Capper; Karen M Summers; Abigail C Mancuso; Amy E Sparks; Bradley J Van Voorhis
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2022-05-11

5.  Blastocyst score, a blastocyst quality ranking tool, is a predictor of blastocyst ploidy and implantation potential.

Authors:  Qiansheng Zhan; E T Sierra; Jonas Malmsten; Zhen Ye; Zev Rosenwaks; Nikica Zaninovic
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-09-28

6.  Closing the circle of reverse genetics in reproductive medicine.

Authors:  David F Albertini
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 7.  Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy in Patients Who Have Had Multiple Miscarriages: A Review of Current Literature.

Authors:  Ralph S Papas; William H Kutteh
Journal:  Appl Clin Genet       Date:  2021-07-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.