Lack of Benefit of Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening

Chapter

Abstract

While there have been more than 3 million babies born from the assisted reproductive techno-logies (ART) worldwide, success in a cycle is not guaranteed. In an effort to overcome inefficiencies in human reproduction, additional embryos are often transferred into the uterus, increasing the risk of multiple pregnancies. Despite the transfer of supra-numerary embryos, the probability of achieving pregnancy is less than 50%. Pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) has been utilized by some programs in addition to standard IVF procedure in an effort to increase delivery rates in patients with poor prognosis for conception (advanced maternal age or prior failed IVF cycles) or to reduce the chance of subsequent miscarriage in patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. Additionally, PGS has been used in an attempt to select the “perfect” embryo to reduce risk of multi-fetal gestation. Due to difficulties with the technique of fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) used to detect aneuploidy in embryos, as well as biologic limitations of embryonic development, the goal of increasing live birth rates with ART does not appear to have been reached. In fact, in two randomized controlled trials, PGS might actually have had the opposite effect and reduced a woman’s chance of having a child.

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technology Preim-plantation genetic screening Aneuploidy Live birth 

References

  1. 1.
    Handyside A, Kontogianni EH, Hardy K, Winston RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990; 344(6268):768–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verlinsky Y, Rechitsky S, Verlinsky O, Ivanchnenko V, Lifchez A, Kaplan B, et al. Prepregnancy testing for single-gene disorders by polar body analysis. Genet Test 1999; 3:185–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Ivanchnenko V, Evsikov S, Wolf G, White M, et al Prepregnancy genetic testing for age-related aneuploidies by polar body analysis. Genet Test 1997–1998; 1:231–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen J, Wells D, Munne S. Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2007; 87:496–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J, Edgar D, Voullaire L. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Eng J Med 2001; 345:1537–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilton L, Voullaire L, Sargeant P, Williamson R, McBain J. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:860–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munne S, Magli C, Bahce M, Fung J, Legator M, Morrison L, et al Preimplantation diagnosis of the aneuploidies most commonly found in spontaneous abortions and live births:XY,13,14,15,16,18,21,22. Prenatal Diag 1998; 18:1459–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Munne S, Magli C, Cohen J, Morton P, Sadowy S, Gianaroli L, et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:2191–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michiels A, Van Assche E, Liebars I, Van Steirteghem A, Staessen C. The analysis of one or two blastomeres for PGD using fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(9):2396–2402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colls P, Escudero T, Cekleniak N, Sadowy S, Cohen J, Munne S. Increased efficiency of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue.” Fertil Steril 2007; 88:53–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baart EB, Martini E, van den Berg I, Macklon NS, Galjaard R-J H, Fauser BCJM, Van Opstal D. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2006; 2:223–33.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magli MC, Jones GM, Gras L, Gianaroli L, Korman I, Trounson AO. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that developed to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:1781–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li M, DeUgarte C, Surrey M, Danzer H, DeCherney A, Hill D. Flourescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day 6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:1395–1400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Munne S, Chen S, Fischer J, Colls P, Zheng X, Stevens J, Escudero T, Oter M, Schoolcraft B, Simpson J, Cohen J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:331–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simpson JL. Genes, chromosomes and reproductive failure. Fertil Steril 1980; 33:107–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Warburton D, Stein Z, Kilne J, Susser M. Chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: data from the New York City study. In: Porter LH, Hook EB, eds. Human embryonic and fetal death. New York, Academic, 1980: 261–67.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eiben B, Bartels I, Bahr-Porch S, Borgmann S, Gatz G, Geller G. Cytogenetic analysis of 750 spontaneous abortions with the direct preparation method of chorionic villi and it’s implications for studying genetic causes of pregnancy wastage. Am J Human Genet 1990; 47:656–63.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Platteau P, Staessen C, An M, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in women older than 37 years. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:319–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munne S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, Lenzi M, Hughes P, Fischer J, Garrisi M, Tomkin G, Cohen J. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6,000 cleavage stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 14:628–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing IVF with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories in which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:837–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, An M, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2849–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. NEJM 2007; 357(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collins JA. Preimplantation genetic screening in older mothers. N Eng J Med, 2007; 357:61–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:300–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Balasch J, Creus M, Fabregues F, Civico S, Carmona F, Martorell J, et al. In vitro fertilization treatment for unexplained recurrent abortion: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:1579–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clifford K, Rai R, Regan L. Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:387–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stephenson MD, Awartani KA, Robinson WP. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:446–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rubio C, Simon C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L, Pehlivan T, Remohi J, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:182–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kahraman S, Benkhalifa M, Donmez E, Biricik A, Sertyel S, Findikili N, et al. The results of aneuploidy screening in 276 couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Prenat Diag 2004; 24:307–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in patients with unexplained recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 83:393–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Romero J, Remohi J, Simon C, et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 6:232–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2006 (https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0).
  33. 33.
    Munne S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Velilla E, Walmsley R, Sadowy S, et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7:91–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jansen RPS, Bowman MC, de Boer KA, Leigh DA, Lieberman DB, McArthur SJ. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:1476–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pellestor F, Giradet A, Andreo B, Arnal F, Humeau C. Relationship between morphology and chromosomal constitution in human Preimplantation embryo. Mol Reprod Dev 1994; 39:141–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Munne S, Alikani M Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates and maternal age are correlated with chromosomal abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:382–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12:234–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moayeri SE, Allen RB, Brewster WR, Kim MH, Porto M, Werlin LB. Day 3 embryo morphology predicts euploidy among older subjects. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:118–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reproductive MedicineWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations