Shimin Yuan1, Liuliang Guo2, Dehua Cheng1, Xiurong Li1, Hao Hu1, Liang Hu1,2,3,4, Guangxiu Lu1,2,3,4, Ge Lin1,2,3,4, Fei Gong5,6,7,8, Yue-Qiu Tan9,10,11,12. 1. Clinical Research Center for Reproduction and Genetics in Hunan Province, Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-Xiangya, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 2. Hospital of Hunan Guangxiu, Medical College of Hunan Normal University, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 3. Institute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, NHC Key Laboratory of Human Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, School of Basic Medical Science, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 4. Hunan International Scientific and Technological Cooperation Base of Development and Carcinogenesis, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 5. Clinical Research Center for Reproduction and Genetics in Hunan Province, Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-Xiangya, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. linggf@hotmail.com. 6. Hospital of Hunan Guangxiu, Medical College of Hunan Normal University, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. linggf@hotmail.com. 7. Institute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, NHC Key Laboratory of Human Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, School of Basic Medical Science, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. linggf@hotmail.com. 8. Hunan International Scientific and Technological Cooperation Base of Development and Carcinogenesis, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. linggf@hotmail.com. 9. Clinical Research Center for Reproduction and Genetics in Hunan Province, Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-Xiangya, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. tanyueqiu@csu.edu.cn. 10. Hospital of Hunan Guangxiu, Medical College of Hunan Normal University, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. tanyueqiu@csu.edu.cn. 11. Institute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, NHC Key Laboratory of Human Stem Cell and Reproductive Engineering, School of Basic Medical Science, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. tanyueqiu@csu.edu.cn. 12. Hunan International Scientific and Technological Cooperation Base of Development and Carcinogenesis, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. tanyueqiu@csu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cytogenetic risk of assisted reproductive technology (ART) by comparing the incidence of de novo chromosomal abnormalities between fetuses conceived via in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) and natural conception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prenatal invasive diagnostic testing (amniocentesis and cytogenetic analysis) was performed on 1496 fetuses conceived via IVF/ICSI (IVF/ICSI group) and 1396 fetuses from natural conception (NC group). The incidence of de novo chromosomal abnormalities (including aneuploidy and chromosomal structure abnormalities) was used to evaluate the cytogenetic risk of ART. For statistical analysis, χ2-test was used for binary dependent variable. The significance level was P < 0.05 and confidence interval was 95%. RESULT(S): The IVF/ICSI group displayed a modest increase in the overall de novo chromosomal abnormality rate compared with that in the NC group but with no statistical significance (6.75% vs. 6.16%; χ2 = 0.42, P > 0.05). The incidence of abnormal karyotypes was also not significantly different between the IVF/ICSI and NC groups in different maternal ages, including ≥ 35 years group (7.55% vs. 9.60%, χ2 = 1.40, P > 0.05) and < 35 years group (6.20% vs. 4.54%, χ2 = 2.51, P > 0.05). Moreover, there was no difference in the proportion of aneuploid and structural abnormalities in detected karyotypes between the IVF/ICSI and NC groups. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between the method of pregnancy and de novo chromosomal abnormalities (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.71-1.50; P = 0.86) after adjusting for other confounding factors. CONCLUSION(S): Fetuses conceived via IVF/ICSI had a slight but not statistically significant increase in de novo abnormal karyotypes compared to those in naturally conceived fetuses. Our findings indicate no significant association between de novo fetal chromosomal abnormalities and the pregnancy method in high-risk pregnancies in the second trimester. For these pregnancies with a high risk but with a normal karyotype, further genetic testing is required for diagnosis.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cytogenetic risk of assisted reproductive technology (ART) by comparing the incidence of de novo chromosomal abnormalities between fetuses conceived via in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) and natural conception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prenatal invasive diagnostic testing (amniocentesis and cytogenetic analysis) was performed on 1496 fetuses conceived via IVF/ICSI (IVF/ICSI group) and 1396 fetuses from natural conception (NC group). The incidence of de novo chromosomal abnormalities (including aneuploidy and chromosomal structure abnormalities) was used to evaluate the cytogenetic risk of ART. For statistical analysis, χ2-test was used for binary dependent variable. The significance level was P < 0.05 and confidence interval was 95%. RESULT(S): The IVF/ICSI group displayed a modest increase in the overall de novo chromosomal abnormality rate compared with that in the NC group but with no statistical significance (6.75% vs. 6.16%; χ2 = 0.42, P > 0.05). The incidence of abnormal karyotypes was also not significantly different between the IVF/ICSI and NC groups in different maternal ages, including ≥ 35 years group (7.55% vs. 9.60%, χ2 = 1.40, P > 0.05) and < 35 years group (6.20% vs. 4.54%, χ2 = 2.51, P > 0.05). Moreover, there was no difference in the proportion of aneuploid and structural abnormalities in detected karyotypes between the IVF/ICSI and NC groups. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between the method of pregnancy and de novo chromosomal abnormalities (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.71-1.50; P = 0.86) after adjusting for other confounding factors. CONCLUSION(S): Fetuses conceived via IVF/ICSI had a slight but not statistically significant increase in de novo abnormal karyotypes compared to those in naturally conceived fetuses. Our findings indicate no significant association between de novo fetal chromosomal abnormalities and the pregnancy method in high-risk pregnancies in the second trimester. For these pregnancies with a high risk but with a normal karyotype, further genetic testing is required for diagnosis.
Authors: Paula J Stokes; Judith A Hawkhead; Richard K Fawthrop; Helen M Picton; Vinay Sharma; Henry J Leese; Franchesca D Houghton Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2006-11-30 Impact factor: 6.918