A single trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage is mathematically unable to determine embryo ploidy accurately enough for clinical use

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Gleicher, Norbert ^a,b,c,d   Metzger, Jacob ^c   Croft, Gist ^c   Kushnir, Vitaly A ^a,e   Albertini, David F ^a,c   Barad, David H ^a,b  

^a CENTER FOR HUMAN REPRODUCTION   (United States)

^b Foundation for Reproductive Medicine   (United States)

^c ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^e WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

In vitro fertilization; Mathematical model; Premplantation genetic screening; Trophectoderm biopsy

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; BLASTOCYST; ECTODERM; EMBRYO; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MOSAICISM; PLOIDY; TROPHECTODERM BIOPSY; TROPHOBLAST; UNCERTAINTY; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; GENETICS; METABOLISM; NIDATION; OOCYTE CLEAVAGE; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANEUPLOIDY; BIOPSY; BLASTOCYST; CLEAVAGE STAGE, OVUM; ECTODERM; EMBRYO IMPLANTATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PLOIDIES; PREGNANCY; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TROPHOBLASTS;

EID: 85018350673     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777827     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12958-017-0251-8     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:3.
2. Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, Delhanty J, Florentino F, Gleicher N, Griesinger G, Grifo J, Handyside A, Harper J, Kokkali G, Mastenbroek S, Meldrum D, Meseguer M, Montag M, Munné S, Rienzi L, Rubio C, Scott K, Scott R, Simon C, Swain J, Treff N, Ubaldi F, Vassena R, Vermeesch JR, Verpoest W, Wells D, Geraedtts J. The why, the how and when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:845-57.
3. Gleicher N, Barad D. A review of, and commentary on the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(11):1159-66.
4. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;15:12-22.
5. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, van Wely M, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;25(1):CD005291.
6. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arnds J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, Vogel NE, Arts EG, de Vries JW, Bossuyr PM, Buys CH, Heineman MJ, Reppings S, van der Veen F. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):9-17.
7. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(4):454-66.
8. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Preimplantation genetic screening: "established" and ready for prime time? Fertil Steril. 2008;89:780-8.
9. Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846-50.
10. Orvieto R, Shuly Y, Brengauz M, Feldman B. Should preimplantation genetic screening be implemented to routine clinical practice? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32:506-8.
11. Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Hudson C, Wu YG, Wang Q, Zhang L, Albertini DF. Accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is compromised by degree of mosaicism of human embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:54.
12. Bolton H, Graham SJL, Van der Aa N, Kumar P, Theunis K, Gallardo EF, Voet T, Zernicka-Goetz M. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal development potential. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11165.
13. Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e9.
14. Greco E, Minasi G, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2089-90.
15. PGDIS Newsletter, PGDIS Position Statement on Chromosome Mosaicism and Preimplantation Aneuploidy Testing at the Blastocyst Stage, Chicago, Illinois, July 19, 2016. http://www.pgdis.org. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.
16. Simpson JL. Guest Editorial. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: its time is now. Contemp ObGyn 2016; www.contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com ; July 2016. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.
17. Deglincerti A, Coft GE, Pietila LN, Zernicka-Goetz M, Siggia ED, Brivanlou AH. Self-organization of the in vitro attached human embryo. Nature. 2016;533(7602):251-4.
18. Hardy K, Stark J, Winston RML. Maintenance of the inner cell mass in human blastocysts from fragmented embryos. Biol Reprod. 2002;68:1165-9.
19. Lee A, Kiessling AA. Early human embryos are naturally aneuploid-can that be corrected? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017; doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0845-7.
20. nd Annual Meeting of ESHRE, Helsinki, Finland, July 3-6. 2016. p. 601.
21. Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Patassini C, Dusi L, Sanges F, Buffo L, Venturella R, Rienzi L. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):199-208.
22. Munné S, Wells D, Cohen J. Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:408-30.
23. Albertini DE. On the dichotomy (im)posed by developmental autonomy during early human embryogenesis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):821-2.
24. Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharva S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32(2):1420146.
25. Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2617-21.
26. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 430. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:766-7.
27. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S136-43.
28. Harton G, Braude P, Lashwood A, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:14-24.
29. nd Annual Meeting of ESHRE, Helsinki, Finland, July3-6. 2016. p. O-028.
30. nd Annual Meeting of ESHRE, Helsinki, Finland, July 3-6. 2016. p. 642.
31. Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011-2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):75-9.
32. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Wells D. The developmental potential of mosaic embryos. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e96.
33. Joyner MJ, Paneth N, Ioannidis JPA. What happens when underperforming big ideas in research become entrenched? JAMA. 2016;316:1355-6.