PDF herunterladen
Semin Reprod Med 2021; 39(01/02): 001-012
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731828
Review Article

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: Current Perspectives

Ariadne L'Heveder 
1   Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
,
Benjamin P. Jones 
1   Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
2   Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Roy Naja
3   IGENOMIX UK, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom
,
Paul Serhal
4   Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health, London, United Kingdom
,
Jara Ben Nagi
4   Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health, London, United Kingdom
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Despite improvements in assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs), live birth rates remain suboptimal, particularly in women with advanced maternal age (AMA). The leading cause of poor reproductive outcomes demonstrated in women with AMA, as well as women with recurrent miscarriage and repetitive implantation failure, is thought to be due to high rates of embryonic aneuploidy. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) aims to select an euploid embryo for transfer and therefore improve ART outcomes. Early PGT-A studies using fluorescent in situ hybridization on mainly cleavage-stage biopsies failed to show improved delivery rates and, in certain cases, were even found to be harmful. However, the development of comprehensive chromosome screening, as well as improvements in culture media and vitrification techniques, has resulted in an emerging body of evidence in favor of PGT-A, demonstrating higher implantation, pregnancy, and live birth rates. While there are concerns regarding the potential harm of invasive biopsy and the cost implications of PGT-A, the introduction of noninvasive techniques and the development of new high-throughput methods which lower costs are tackling these issues. This review aims to assess the evidence for PGT-A, address possible concerns regarding PGT-A, and also explore the future direction of this technology.

Keywords

preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies - assisted reproduction technique - in vitro fertilization - aneuploidy

Authors' Contributions

A.L.: researched and wrote the article; B.P.J.: instigated the article, provided expertise, and edited the article; P.S.: revised final draft; R.N.: provided expertise and revised final draft; J.B.N.: instigated article, provided expertise, and revised final draft.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Juli 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod 2016; 22 (08) 839-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 L'Heveder A, Jones BP, Naja R, Serhal P, Ben-Naga J. Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: the past, present and future. TOG 2020; 22: 293-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. SART national summary report: final CSR for 2016. Accessed May 6, 2019 at: https://www.sartcorsonline.com
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH. et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (03) 656-663.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hodes-Wertz B, Grifo J, Ghadir S. et al. Idiopathic recurrent miscarriage is caused mostly by aneuploid embryos. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (03) 675-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Greco E, Bono S, Ruberti A. et al. Comparative genomic hybridization selection of blastocysts for repeated implantation failure treatment: a pilot study. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 457913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL. et al; STAR Study Group. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (06) 1071-1079.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment 2017: trends and figures. Published May 2019. Accessed June 25, 2021 at: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2894/fertility-treatment-2017-trends-and-figures-may-2019.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (02) 473-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ben Nagi J, Serhal P, Wells D, Jones BP. Preimplantation genetic screening should be used in all in vitro fertilisation cycles in women over the age of 35 years: FOR: Optimising reproductive outcomes is cost-effective and minimises adverse sequelae. BJOG 2019; 126 (13) 1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Hodes-Wertz B, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32 (03) 435-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Griffin DK, Ogur C. Chromosomal analysis in IVF: just how useful is it?. Reproduction 2018; 156 (01) F29-F50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30 (03) 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM. et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013; a 100 (01) 100-7.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L. et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (05) 1122-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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 (04) 454-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, Fleischer K, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 9 (No:CD5291): CD005291
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kang HJ, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits?. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (03) 597-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10) e0140779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Whitney JB, Schiewe MC, Anderson RE. Single center validation of routine blastocyst biopsy implementation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33 (11) 1507-1513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S. et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (09) 2097-2106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L. et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (05) 1400-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chang J, Boulet SL, Jeng G, Flowers L, Kissin DM. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011-2012. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (02) 394-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (09) 1767-1776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lee E, Chambers GM, Hale L, Illingworth P, Wilton L. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) cumulative live birth rates following preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy (PGD-A) or morphological assessment of embryos: a cohort analysis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 58 (05) 525-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Munné S, Chen S, Fischer J. et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (02) 331-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Garcia-Pascual C. et al. Clinical application of embryo aneuploidy testing by next-generation sequencing. Biol Reprod 2019; 101 (06) 1083-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Keltz MD, Vega M, Sirota I. et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30 (10) 1333-1339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ. et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (03) 697-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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 (01) 75-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Musters AM, Repping S, Korevaar JC. et al. Pregnancy outcome after preimplantation genetic screening or natural conception in couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: a systematic review of the best available evidence. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (06) 2153-2157 , 2157.e1–2157.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Munné S, Wells D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (05) 1085-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2013; b 100 (03) 624-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J. 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 2016; 22 (08) 845-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Singh S, Hobeika E, Knochenhauer ES, Traub ML. Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36 (04) 621-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D. et al. 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 (01) 199-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B. et al. Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case-control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (06) 1414-1419.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Homer HA. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): The biology, the technology and the clinical outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 59 (02) 317-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS. et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012; 5 (01) 24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schoolcraft WB, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Gustofson RL, Scott Jr RT, Katz-Jaffe MG. Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) with vitrification results in improved clinical outcome in women >35 years: a randomized control trial. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (03) S1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Yoruk GDA, Candurmaz NN, Coetzee K. Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36 (04) 629-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M. et al; PGD Practitioners Group. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (06) 1695-1703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Murugappan G, Shahine LK, Perfetto CO, Hickok LR, Lathi RB. Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (08) 1668-1674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Jones B. et al. A systematic review exploring the patient decision-making factors and attitudes towards pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and gender selection. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020; 00: 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Vajta G, Ubaldi FM. PGS for recurrent pregnancy loss: still an open question. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (02) 476-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D. et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (06) 1173-1181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Harton G, Braude P, Lashwood A, Schmutzler A, Wilton L, Harper JC. ESHRE PGD Consortium-best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD center for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 14-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org; Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018; 109 (03) 429-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG. Comprehensive chromosome screening of trophectoderm with vitrification facilitates elective single-embryo transfer for infertile women with advanced maternal age. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (03) 615-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Neal SA, Morin SJ, Franasiak JM. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (05) 896-904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Lee E, Costello MF, Botha WC, Illingworth P, Chambers GM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for up to three complete assisted reproductive technology cycles in women of advanced maternal age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 59 (04) 573-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Magli MC, Pomante A, Cafueri G. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing: polar bodies, blastomeres, trophectoderm cells, or blastocoelic fluid?. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (03) 676-683.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Liu W, Liu J, Du H, Ling J, Sun X, Chen D. Non-invasive pre-implantation aneuploidy screening and diagnosis of beta thalassemia IVSII654 mutation using spent embryo culture medium. Ann Med 2017; 49 (04) 319-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rubio C, Rienzi L, Navarro-Sánchez L. et al. Embryonic cell-free DNA versus trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy testing: concordance rate and clinical implications. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (03) 510-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (21) 2089-2090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Cram DS, Leigh D, Handyside A. et al; The Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society. PGDIS Position Statement on the transfer of mosaic embryos 2019. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 39 (Suppl. 01) e1-e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Friedenthal J, Maxwell SM, Munné S. et al. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2018; 109 (04) 627-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B. et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet 2010; 47 (10) 651-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Brezina PR, Anchan R, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33 (07) 823-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar