Advertisement

Aneuploidy rates and blastocyst formation after biopsy of morulae and early blastocysts on day 5

  • Jonathan D. KortEmail author
  • Ruth B. Lathi
  • Kathleen Brookfield
  • Valerie L. Baker
  • Qianying Zhao
  • Barry R. Behr
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

Studies have demonstrated high implantation rates after trophectoderm biopsy of day 5 expanded blastocysts. However, biopsy of cleavage stage embryos may adversely affect embryo development and implantation. No studies have assessed the utility of day 5 morulae and early blastocyst biopsy. This study sought to better understand these slower embryos’ aneuploidy rates and implantation potential.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of all autologous IVF cycles utilizing PGS at a single academic infertility center.

Results

The biopsy of day 5 morulae and early blastocysts provided 22 % additional euploid blastocysts available for fresh day 6 transfer compared to day 5 biopsy of only expanded blastocysts. Aneuploidy did correlate with embryo stage on day 5, even after controlling for maternal age, with 16 % of morulae and 35 % of blastocysts being euploid. The majority (83 %) of euploid morulae progressed to the blastocyst stage by day 6. Experience transferring slower developing embryos is limited, but preliminary pregnancy and implantation rates appear similar to euploid embryos biopsied as expanded blastocysts.

Conclusions

The biopsy of all non-arrested embryos on day 5 provides genetic information for all blastocysts on day 6, increasing the pool of euploid blastocysts available for fresh transfer and avoiding the need to cryopreserve developmentally competent embryos without genetic information.

Keywords

PGD Fresh Transfer Blastocyst Aneuploidy Implantation 

References

  1. 1.
    Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. MHR: Basic Sci Reprod Med. 2010;16:590–600.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fritz MA. Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2617–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, 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;100:697–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;100:624–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Sola I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:156–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gustin SF, Zhao Q, Behr B, Lathi RB. Leveling the playing field – embryo transfers after trophectoderm biopsy have similar outcomes in fresh and frozen cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:S194–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliot T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1173–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kroener L, Ambartsumyan G, Briton-Jones C, Dumesic D, Surrey M, Munné S, et al. The effect of timing of embryonic progression on chromosomal abnormality. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:876–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapiro BS, Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST. A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:1126–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behr B, Gebhardt J, Lyon J, Milki A. Factors relating to a successful cryopreserved blastocyst transfer program. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:697–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kort JD, Lathi RB, Zhao Q, Behr B, Baker VL. Are Anti-müllerian hormone levels predictive of aneuploidy rates? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(2 Supplement):e5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CFL. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:477–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Stoppa M, Romano S, Maggiulli R, Albricci L, et al. No evidence of association between blastocyst aneuploidy and morphokinetic assessment in a selected population of poor-prognosis patients: a longitudinal cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(1):57–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gonzalez-Merino E, Emiliani S, Vassart G, Den Bergh MV, Vannin AS, Abramowicz M, et al. Incidence of chromosomal mosaicism in human embryos at different developmental stages analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genet Test. 2003;7:85–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorthongpanich T, Doris TPY, Limviphuvadh V, Knowles BB, Solter D. Developmental fate and lineage commitment of singled mouse blastomeres. Development. 2012;139:3722–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tao J, Craig RH, Johnson M, Williams B, Lewis W, White J, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos at the morula stage and outcomes after transfer. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:108–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Treff N, Tao X, Ferry K, Jing S, Taylor D, Scott RT. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction–based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):819–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan D. Kort
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ruth B. Lathi
    • 1
  • Kathleen Brookfield
    • 1
  • Valerie L. Baker
    • 1
  • Qianying Zhao
    • 1
  • Barry R. Behr
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations