Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy outcomes in patients without infertility undergoing in vitro fertilization compared to infertile controls

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) outcomes in patients without infertility compared to infertile patients.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients without an infertility diagnosis (“fertile” patients) who utilized PGT-A at a large university-affiliated fertility center between 2016 and 2021. Fertile patients were 1-to-3 matched to infertile controls by age and number of oocytes retrieved. The primary outcome was blastocyst aneuploidy rate. Secondary outcomes included ovarian reserve markers, laboratory outcomes, and other PGT-A outcomes [rates of euploidy, mosaicism, and potentially transferrable (euploid + mosaic) embryos].

Results

283 fertile and 849 infertile patients were included. Median age, anti-Mullerian hormone, and day 2 estradiol levels were equivalent among groups; day 2 follicle-stimulating hormone levels were higher in fertile patients (6.9 vs. 6.5 IU/mL, p < 0.01). The aneuploidy rate was similar among fertile and infertile patients (33.7% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.11); the euploidy rate was higher (50.8% vs. 47.0%, p < 0.01), and the mosaicism rate was lower in fertile patients (13.3% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.01). The rate of transferrable embryos was similar among groups (64.0% vs. 66.3%, p = 0.07), as was the percentage of patients yielding ≥ 1 euploid embryo (90.1% vs. 87.3%, p = 0.25). When controlling for significant covariates, multiple linear regression showed that aneuploidy rate was equivalent in both cohorts.

Conclusion

Aneuploidy rate was similar in fertile and infertile patients. Fertile patients had slightly higher euploidy and lower mosaicism than infertile patients. Still, compared to fertile patients, infertile patients had equivalent rates of transferrable embryos and were just as likely to yield ≥ 1 euploid embryo.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, EAC, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Hodes-Wertz B, Grifo J, Ghadir S, Kaplan B, Laskin CA, Glassner M, et al. Idiopathic recurrent miscarriage is caused mostly by aneuploid embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marquard K, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Lathi RB. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1473–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:280–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pylyp LY, Spynenko LO, Verhoglyad NV, Mishenko AO, Mykytenko DO, Zukin VD. Chromosomal abnormalities in products of conception of first-trimester miscarriages detected by conventional cytogenetic analysis: a review of 1000 cases. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:265–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee H, McCulloh DH, Hodes-Wertz B, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implanation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:435–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:656–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pantou A, Mitrakos A, Kokkali G, Petroutsou K, Tounta G, Lazaros L, Dimopoulos A, Sfakianoudis K, Pantos K, Koutsilieris M, Mavrou A, Kanavakis E, Tzetis M. The impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes in high risk patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39:1341–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Maziotis E, et al. PGT-A: who and when? Alpha systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:1939–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Roche K, Racowsky C, Harper J. Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:1045–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429–436.

  11. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. Blastocyst euploidy and implantation rates in young (<35 years) and old (≥35 years) presumed fertile and infertile patient population. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1318–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kort JD, McCoy RC, Demko Z, Lathi RB. Are blastocyst aneuploidy rates different between fertile and infertile populations? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:403–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoyos LR, Cheng CY, Brennan K, et al. Euploid rates among oocyte donors: is there an optimal age for donation? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:589–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Munne S, Alikani M, Ribustello L, et al. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:743–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leigh D, Cram DS, Rechitsky S, Handyside A, Wells D, Munne S, et al. PGDIS position statement on the transfer of mosaic embryos 2021. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45:19–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Practice Committee and Genetic Counseling Professional Group (GCPG) of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:246–54.

  17. Victor AR, Tyndall JC, Brake AJ, Lepkowsky LT, Murphy AE, Griffin DK, et al. One hundred mosaic embryos transferred prospectively in a single clinic: exploring when and why they result in healthy pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:280–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee CI, Cheng EH, Lee MS, Lin PY, Chen YC, Chen CH, et al. Healthy live births from transfers of low-mosaicism embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:2305–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Babariya D, Tarozzi N, Borini A, et al. Analysis of implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates following the transfer of mosaic diploid-aneuploid blastocysts. Hum Genet. 2017;136:805–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zore T, Kroener LL, Wang C, Liu L, Buyalos R, Hubert G, Shamonki M. Transfer of embryos with segmental mosaicism is associated with a significant reduction in live-birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Capalbo A, Poli M, Rienzi L, Girardi L, Patassini C, Fabiani M, et al. Mosaic human preimplantation embryos and their developmental potential in a prospective, non-selection clinical trial. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(12):2238–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Stovezky YR, Romanski PA, Bortoletto P, Spandorfer SD. Body mass index is not associated with embryo ploidy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:388–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldman KN, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Flom JD, Grifo JA. Association of body mass index with embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:744–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Massie JAM, Shahine LK, Milki A, Westphal L, Lathi R. Ovarian stimulation and the risk of aneuploid conceptions. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:970–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barash OO, Hinckley MD, Rosenbluth EM, Ivani KA, Weckstein LN. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2209–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cascales A, Lledó B, Ortiz JA, Morales R, Ten J, Llácer J, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation on embryo aneuploidy and mosaicism rate. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2021;67:42–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, van Opstal D, Beckers NGM, Verhoeff A, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:980–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Katz-Jaffe MG, Trounson AO, Cram DS. Chromosome 21 mosaic human preimplantation embryos predominantly arise from diploid conceptions. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:634–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thankfully acknowledge the patients included in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Emily A. Clarke

  2. New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Asha K. Dahiya

  3. New York University Langone Fertility Center, 159 East 53rd Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Sarah D. Cascante & Jennifer K. Blakemore

Authors
  1. Emily A. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asha K. Dahiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah D. Cascante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer K. Blakemore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Emily A. Clarke and Asha K. Dahiya. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Emily A. Clarke, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily A. Clarke.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and informed consent

This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. The study was performed with New York University Institutional Review Board approval (s13-00389).

Competing interests

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

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

Clarke, E.A., Dahiya, A.K., Cascante, S.D. et al. Evaluation of pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy outcomes in patients without infertility undergoing in vitro fertilization compared to infertile controls. J Assist Reprod Genet 40, 2697–2704 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02941-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02941-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation