Chromosomal mosaicism detected during preimplantation genetic screening: results of a worldwide Web-based survey

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 107, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 1092-1097

  Weissman, Ariel ^a,b   Shoham, Gon ^b   Shoham, Zeev ^c,d   Fishel, Simon ^e   Leong, Milton ^f   Yaron, Yuval ^a,g  

^a WOLFSON MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c KAPLAN MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^d HEBREW UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^e CARE Fertility Group   (United Kingdom)

^f IVF Clinic   (Hong Kong)

^g TEL AVIV SOURASKY MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

Aneuploidy; chromosomal aberrations; in vitro fertilization; mosaicism; preimplantation genetic screening

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; CHROMOSOME MOSAICISM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EMBRYO; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PATIENT COUNSELING; PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYO; PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYOLOGY; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; INCIDENCE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERNET; MOSAICISM; NIDATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INTERNATIONALITY; INTERNET; MOSAICISM; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 85017503330     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: 15565653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.119     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. 1 Hassold, T., Abruzzo, M., Adkins, K., Griffin, D., Merrill, M., Millie, E., et al. Human aneuploidy: incidence, origin, and etiology. Environ Mol Mutagen 28 (1996), 167–175.
2. 2 Verlinsky, Y., Cieslak, J., Freidine, M., Ivakhnenko, V., Wolf, G., Kovalinskaya, L., et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod 10 (1995), 1923–1927.
3. 3 Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., van der Veen, F., Repping, S., Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 17 (2011), 454–466.
4. 4 Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., van Echten-Arends, J., Sikkema-Raddatz, B., Korevaar, J.C., Verhoeve, H.R., et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 357 (2007), 9–17.
5. 5 Whitney, J.B., Schiewe, M.C., Anderson, R.E., Single center validation of routine blastocyst biopsy implementation. J Assist Reprod Genet 33 (2016), 1507–1513.
6. 6 Orvieto, R., Gleicher, N., Should preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) be implemented to routine IVF practice?. J Assist Reprod Genet 33 (2016), 1445–1448.
7. 7 Munne, S., Grifo, J., Wells, D., Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil Steril 105 (2016), 1146–1149.
8. 8 Greco, E., Minasi, M.G., Fiorentino, F., Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med 373 (2015), 2089–2090.
9. 9 Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society. PGDIS position statement on chromosome mosaicism and preimplantation aneuploidy testing at the blastocyst stage. PGDIS Newsletter, July 19, 2016. Available at: http://pgdis.org/docs/newsletter_071816.html. Accessed July 19, 2016.
10. 10 Controversies in Preconception, Preimplantation and Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis (CoGEN). Position statement on chromosomal mosaicism detected in preimplantation blastocyst biopsies. IVF Worldwide, Virtual Academy of Genetics, 2016. Available at: http://www.ivf-worldwide.com/cogen/general/cogen-statement.html. Accessed February 26, 2017.
11. 11 Vaisbuch, E., Leong, M., Shoham, Z., Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online 25 (2012), 139–145.
12. 12 Kokkali, G., Traeger-Synodinos, J., Vrettou, C., Stavrou, D., Jones, G.M., Cram, D.S., et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 22 (2007), 1443–1449.
13. 13 Scott, R.T. Jr., Upham, K.M., Forman, E.J., Zhao, T., Treff, N.R., Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 100 (2013), 624–630.
14. 14 Sermon, K., Capalbo, A., Cohen, J., Coonen, E., De Rycke, M., De Vos, A., et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod 22 (2016), 845–857.
15. 15 Cieslak-Janzen, J., Tur-Kaspa, I., Ilkevitch, Y., Bernal, A., Morris, R., Verlinsky, Y., Multiple micromanipulations for preimplantation genetic diagnosis do not affect embryo development to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 85 (2006), 1826–1829.
16. 16 Hardy, K., Martin, K.L., Leese, H.J., Winston, R.M., Handyside, A.H., Human preimplantation development in vitro is not adversely affected by biopsy at the 8-cell stage. Hum Reprod 5 (1990), 708–714.
17. 17 Neal, S.A., Franasiak, J.M., Forman, E.J., Werner, M.D., Morin, S.J., Tao, X., et al. High relative deoxyribonucleic acid content of trophectoderm biopsy adversely affects pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril 107 (2017), 731–736.e1.