Rates of live birth after mosaic embryo transfer compared with euploid embryo transfer
- 255 Downloads
Mosaicism is a prevalent characteristic of human preimplantation embryos. This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate pregnancy outcomes after transfer of mosaic or euploid embryos.
The embryos, which had been transferred as “euploidy,” were processed using array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). The original aCGH charts of the transferred embryos were reanalyzed. Mosaic and control euploid embryos were defined according to log2 ratio calls.
Overall, 102 embryos were determined to be mosaic, of which 101 were estimated to harbor no more than 50% aneuploid mosaicism. Additionally, 268 euploid embryos were matched as controls. The rates of live birth (46.6% vs. 59.1%, odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38–0.95), and biochemical pregnancy (65.7% vs. 76.1%, OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37–0.99) per transfer cycle were significantly lower after mosaic embryo transfer than after euploid embryo transfer. The rates of clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss and the risks of obstetric outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.
Compared with euploid embryo transfer, mosaic embryo transfer is associated with a lower rate of live birth, which is mainly attributed to a decreased rate of conception. However, as mosaic embryo transfer yielded a live birth rate of 46.6%, patients without euploid embryos could be counseled regarding this alternative option.
KeywordsEmbryo transfer Mosaic embryo Live birth Obstetric outcome Mosaicism
The authors expressed thanks to Wenjie Jiang, Hongqiang Xie, Hongchang Li, and Ping Li from Reproductive Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University for performing PGT procedures and following up.
This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant number 2016YFC1000202), National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81671522), and Innovative Foundation of Reproductive Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University (grant number 20171114).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 8.Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2298–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Vorsanova SG, Kolotii AD, Iourov IY, Monakhov VV, Kirillova EA, Soloviev IV, et al. Evidence for high frequency of chromosomal mosaicism in spontaneous abortions revealed by interphase FISH analysis. J Histochem Cytochem. 2005;53(3):375–80. https://doi.org/10.1369/jhc.4A6424.2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, DH MC, McCaffrey C, Wells D, 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(6):1414–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanchez-Garcia J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):953–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, 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(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-5-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.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. 2016;22(8):845–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaw034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Munne S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, et al. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):62–71.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Zhang Q, Li G, Zhang L, Sun X, Zhang D, Lu J et al. Maternal common variant rs2305957 spanning PLK4 is associated with blastocyst formation and early recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2017;107(4):1034–40 e5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.006, 1040.e5.
- 36.Gleicher N, Metzger J, Croft G, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. A single trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage is mathematically unable to determine embryo ploidy accurately enough for clinical use. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-017-0251-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Segawa T, Kuroda T, Kato K, Kuroda M, Omi K, Miyauchi O, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of the retained products of conception after missed abortion following blastocyst transfer: a retrospective, large-scale, single-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34(2):203–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Malvestiti F, Agrati C, Grimi B, Pompilii E, Izzi C, Martinoni L, et al. Interpreting mosaicism in chorionic villi: results of a monocentric series of 1001 mosaics in chorionic villi with follow-up amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(11):1117–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1375–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar