Skip to main content
Log in

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in poor ovarian responders with four or fewer oocytes retrieved

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To assess whether preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) at the blastocyst stage improves clinical outcomes compared with transfer of embryos without PGT-A in poor ovarian response (POR) patients.


Retrospective cohort study of IVF cycles from 2016 to 2019 at a single academic fertility center. IVF cycles with POR and four or fewer oocytes retrieved were stratified into PGT-A (n = 241) and non-PGT (n = 112) groups. In PGT-A cycles, trophectoderm biopsy, next-generation sequencing with 24-chromosome screening, and single euploid frozen embryo transfer were performed. In non-PGT cycles, fresh or frozen transfer of untested embryos on day 3 or 5 was performed. Main outcomes included live birth rate and miscarriage rate per retrieval.


Patients who underwent PGT-A cycles were significantly less likely to reach embryo transfer compared with those who underwent non-PGT cycles (13.7% vs 70.6%). The live birth rate per retrieval did not differ between the PGT-A and non-PGT groups (6.6% vs 5.4%). Overall, the miscarriage rate was low. The PGT-A group demonstrated a significantly lower miscarriage rate per retrieval (0.4% vs 3.6%) as well as per pregnancy (5.9% vs 40.0%) compared with the non-PGT group. The number needed to treat to avoid one clinical miscarriage was 31 PGT-A cycles.


PGT-A did not improve live birth rate per retrieval in POR patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved. PGT-A was associated with a lower miscarriage rate; however, a fairly large number of PGT-A cycles were needed to prevent one miscarriage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The material contained in the manuscript has not been published, has not been submitted, or is not being submitted elsewhere for publication.

Code availability



  1. Devine K, Mumford SL, Wu M, DeCherney AH, Hill MJ, Propst A. Diminished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive technology population: diagnostic trends among 181,536 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:612–19.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, La Vecchia I, Iachini E, Paffoni A, et al. A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:315–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695–703.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14:628–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, Hillensjö T, Nilsson L, Stevic J, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2806–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;22:845–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. 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;112:1071–9.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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;5:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–7.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Glujovsky DFC, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. In Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;6:CD002118.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1616–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Puissant F, Van Rysselberge M, Barlow P, Deweze J, Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 1987;2:705–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1122–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Munné S, Alikani M, Ribustello L, Colls P, Martínez-Ortiz PA, McCulloh DH, et al. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:743–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;36:629–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE 'poor responder’ criteria in research studies: methodological implications. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1835–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:113–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;30:473–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Neal SA, Scott RT, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patients <38 years old: a quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance. Hum Reprod 2018.

  23. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:344–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kushnir VA, Vidali A, Barad DH, Gleicher N. The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:736–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kulak D, Jindal SK, Oh C, Morelli SS, Kratka S, McGovern PG. Reporting in vitro fertilization cycles to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database: where have all the cycles gone? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:927–31.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.D. performed study design, execution, statistical analysis, and wrote the manuscript. H.H., Q.Z., A.N., and S.A. coordinated data collection and statistical analysis. B.B. and R.L. contributed interpretation of the data and edit of the manuscript. We thank Stephanie A. Leonard for assistance in statistics. All authors reviewed the manuscript and provided critical feedback and discussion.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Deng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

This research is approved by IRB at Stanford University.

Consent to participate


Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The work was done in Stanford Medicine Fertility and Reproductive Health Services.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 74 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deng, J., Hong, H.Y., Zhao, Q. et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in poor ovarian responders with four or fewer oocytes retrieved. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 1147–1154 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: