Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Elucidating the PGT-A paradox: marginalising the detriment relegates the benefit

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

Abstract

The hypothetical analysis presented offers insight into the effect of maternal age and protocol on the cost-effectiveness of PGT-A to reduce the risk of clinical miscarriage without materially jeopardising the chance of a first live birth when attempting to transfer every suitable embryo one at a time. Reflecting current practices, the diagnostic accuracy of PGT-A is sensitive to the prevalence of embryos with chromosome aneuploidy which increases with advancing maternal age, and the power of the test to discern a non-viable embryo is higher for older women and sensitive to protocol. PGT-A is effective to mitigate (reduce not eliminate) the risk of clinical miscarriage; however, excluding embryos with intermediate copy number results from transfer is detrimental to accomplishing a first live birth from a full cycle. Paradoxically, the number of blastocysts needed to marginalise the detriment is achieved only for some younger women (≤ 40 years) who are less likely to benefit by avoiding pregnancy loss; this also makes PGT-A an expensive adjuvant. The paradox can be avoided by excluding from transfer only embryos with a ‘uniform’ aneuploid test result, which mitigates the risk of miscarriage for all women with the potential to be cost-effective for those > 40 years.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Supplementary files are provided.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. COGEN. A statement on the use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of chromosomes for IVF patients 2015; https://ivf-worldwide.com/cogen/oep/publications/cogen-statement-on-the-use-of-preimplantation-genetic-screening-pgs-of-chromosomes-for-ivf-patients.html (last accessed 25/06/2022).

  2. Mastenbroek S, de Wert G, Adashi EY. The imperative of responsible innovation in reproductive medicine. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2096–100. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb2101718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gleicher N, Barad DH, Patrizio P, Orvieto R. We have reached a dead end for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2022;deac052. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac052

  4. 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:CD005291. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005291.pub3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Viotti M, Victor AR, Barnes FL, Zouves CG, Besser AG, Grifo JA, Cheng EH, Lee MS, Horcajadas JA, Corti L, Fiorentino F, Spinella F, Minasi MG, Greco E, Munné S. Using outcome data from one thousand mosaic embryo transfers to formulate an embryo ranking system for clinical use. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1212–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.041.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Capalbo A, Poli M, Rienzi L, Girardi L, Patassini C, Fabiani M, Cimadomo D, Benini F, Farcomeni A, Cuzzi J, Rubio C, Albani E, Sacchi L, Vaiarelli A, Figliuzzi M, Findikli N, Coban O, Boynukalin FK, Vogel I, Hoffmann E, Livi C, Levi-Setti PE, Ubaldi FM, Simón C. Mosaic human preimplantation embryos and their developmental potential in a prospective, non-selection clinical trial. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108:2238–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Armstrong A, Miller J, Quinn M, Nguyen AV, Kwan L, Kroener L. To mask or not to mask mosaicism? The impact of reporting embryo mosaicism on reproductive potential. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39:2035–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02576-z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Leigh D, Cram DS, Rechitsky S, Handyside A, Wells D, Munne S, Kahraman S, Grifo J, Katz-Jaffe M, Rubio C, Viotti M, Forman E, Xu K, Gordon T, Madjunkova S, Qiao J, Chen ZJ, Harton G, Gianaroli L, Simon C, Scott R, Simpson JL, Kuliev A. PGDIS position statement on the transfer of mosaic embryos 2021. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Barad DH, Albertini DF, Molinari E, Gleicher N. IVF outcomes of embryos with abnormal PGT-A biopsy previously refused transfer: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2022;37:1194–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac063.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Capalbo A, Cimadomo D, Rienzi L, Garcìa-Velasco JA, Simòn C, Ubaldi FM. Avoid mixing apples and oranges: blastocysts diagnosed with uniform whole chromosome aneuploidies are reproductively incompetent and their transfer is harmful. Hum Reprod. 2022;37:2213–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ata B, Popovic M, Fatemi H. Correct assessment and interpretation of results determines the accuracy of any diagnostic test, and PGT-A is no exception. Hum Reprod. 2022;37:2214–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barad DH, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. In science truth ultimately wins, and PGT-A is no exception. Hum Reprod. 2022;37:2216–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac151.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tiegs AW, Tao X, Zhan Y, Whitehead C, Kim J, Hanson B, Osman E, Kim TJ, Patounakis G, Gutmann J, Castelbaum A, Seli E, Jalas C, Scott RT Jr. A multicenter, prospective, blinded, nonselection study evaluating the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis using a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy assay and impact of biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:627–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.052.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Iwamoto A, Van Voorhis BJ, Summers KM, Sparks A, Mancuso AC. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs. conventional in vitro fertilization in patients with non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:465–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ. 1994;309:184–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6948.184.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group, Kokkali G, Coticchio G, Bronet F, Celebi C, Cimadomo D, Goossens V, Liss J, Nunes S, Sfontouris I, Vermeulen N, Zakharova E, De Rycke M. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(3):hoaa020. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening and cumulative reproductive outcome: transfer strategy, diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AIMS Genetics. 2016;3:177–95. https://doi.org/10.3934/genet.2016.3.177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: insights from a virtual trial for women under the age of 40 when transferring embryos one at a time. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-017-0269-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, Sun Y, Gong F, Li R, Sun X, Ling X, Li H, Hao C, Tan J, Yang J, Zhu Y, Liu F, Chen D, Wei D, Lu J, Ni T, Zhou W, Wu K, Gao Y, Shi Y, Lu Y, Zhang T, Wu W, Ma X, Ma H, Fu J, Zhang J, Meng Q, Zhang H, Legro RS, Chen ZJ. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2047–58. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2103613.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, Peck AC, Sills ES, Salem RD. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-5-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London, UK

    Paul N. Scriven

Authors
  1. Paul N. Scriven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author is responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul N. Scriven.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 5673 KB)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 283 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scriven, P.N. Elucidating the PGT-A paradox: marginalising the detriment relegates the benefit. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2475–2481 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02640-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02640-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation