Abstract
The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in poor responders undergoing assisted reproductive technology has been a topic of debate with controversial results. It is critical to note the denominators used in data presented. Herein, we comment on the results found in the study by Kahraman et al. on the utility of PGT-A in poor responders with a single, good-quality blastocyst.
References
Kahraman S, Duzguner INB, Sahin Y, Irez T. What to advise to patients with only one good quality blastocyst, PGT-A or not? Outcomes of 2064 cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(11):2555–2562. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10815-022-02617-7.
Gordon CE, Keefe KW, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C, Lanes A. Embryo attrition in planned PGT-A: predicting the number of available blastocysts for transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(1):173–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10815-021-02365-0.
Morin SJ, Kaser DJ, Franasiak JM. The dilemma of aneuploidy screening on low responders. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(3):179–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000449.
Takeda E, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ebara T, et al. Attitudes toward preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy among patients with recurrent pregnancy loss in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46(4):567–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOG.14212.
Deng J, Hong HY, Zhao Q, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in poor ovarian responders with four or fewer oocytes retrieved. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(5):1147–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10815-020-01765-Y.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walker, Z.W., Ginsburg, E.S. What to do with one good quality blastocyst and where do we place the emphasis?. J Assist Reprod Genet 40, 689–690 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02712-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02712-3