Advertisement

Preimplantation Genetic Screening: Not for Everyone

  • Kimberly W. Keefe
  • Elizabeth S. Ginsburg
Chapter

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of embryos in assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a technique in which an embryologist removes a small number of cells from the trophectoderm, the cells destined to become the placenta, in a day 5 or 6 blastocyst to evaluate the embryo’s DNA for ploidy status. The use of this technology has become widespread, advertised as a way to maximize success rates across the general IVF population. However, the current published literature does not fully support this conclusion. Instead, the literature suggests PGS seems to be most useful in women greater than age 35 who have higher rates of aneuploidy and in women with robust ovarian reserve; those women are more likely to have enough embryos to have successful blastulation and have embryos for biopsy. Patients with low embryo numbers may not produce blastocysts to biopsy and therefore no embryo transfer and no chance of pregnancy in that cycle. The data are mixed on the benefits of PGS in the setting of other diagnoses such as recurrent pregnancy loss. Though PGS has a role in the field of assisted reproductive technology, further research is needed to clarify which specific patient populations are most likely to benefit from the technique.

Keywords

Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) In vitro fertilization (IVF) Assisted reproductive technology (ART) 

References

  1. 1.
    Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(4):280–91.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35066065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Munne S, Weier HU, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod. 1994;51(3):373–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, Vogel NE, Arts EG, de Vries JW, Bossuyt PM, Buys CH, Heineman MJ, Repping S, van der Veen F. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):9–17.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Werner MD, Scott RT Jr, Treff NR. 24-chromosome PCR for aneuploidy screening. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(3):201–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1503–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beukers F, van der Heide M, Middelburg KJ, Cobben JM, Mastenbroek S, Breur R, van der Lee JH, Hadders-Algra M, Bos AF, Kok JH, Group PGSS. Morphologic abnormalities in 2-year-old children born after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with preimplantation genetic screening: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):408–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.10.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846–50.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang HJ, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):597–602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moayeri M, Saeidi H, Modarresi MH, Hashemi M. The effect of Preimplantation genetic screening on implantation rate in women over 35 years of age. Cell J. 2016;18(1):13–20.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barad DH, Darmon SK, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. Impact of preimplantation genetic screening on donor oocyte-recipient cycles in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):576 e571–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott RT Jr. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):157 e151–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gleicher N, Barad DH. A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(11):1159–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9871-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cedars MI. National reporting of in vitro fertilization success rates: how do we get patients useful information? Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1210–1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening is alive and very well: really? Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):e36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, Ferrero S, Minasi MG, Martinez F, Tesarik J, Greco E. Day 3 embryo transfer with combined evaluation at the pronuclear and cleavage stages compares favourably with day 5 blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(7):1852–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emiliani S, Delbaere A, Vannin AS, Biramane J, Verdoodt M, Englert Y, Devreker F. Similar delivery rates in a selected group of patients, for day 2 and day 5 embryos both cultured in sequential medium: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(10):2145–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bungum M, Bungum L, Humaidan P, Yding Andersen C. Day 3 versus day 5 embryo transfer: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(1):98–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Saussereau MH, Cadoret V, Jamet C, Royere D. Single day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(5):1051–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(5):583–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sills ES, Li X, Frederick JL, Khoury CD, Potter DA. Determining parental origin of embryo aneuploidy: analysis of genetic error observed in 305 embryos derived from anonymous donor oocyte IVF cycles. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7(1):68.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-014-0068-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coates A, Bankowski BJ, Kung A, Griffin DK, Munne S. Differences in pregnancy outcomes in donor egg frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles following preimplantation genetic screening (PGS): a single center retrospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(1):71–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0832-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haddad G, Deng M, Wang CT, Witz C, Williams D, Griffith J, Skorupski J, Gill J, Wang WH. Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from donated eggs and the necessity of the embryos for aneuploidy screening. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(6):999–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0492-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deng A, Wang WH. Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from cryopreserved donor eggs. Mol Cytogenet. 2015;8:12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0117-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Gysler M, Child TJ, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, Silverberg K, Kalista T, Oliver K, Katz-Jaffe M, Wells D, Gordon T, Willman S. Global multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single embryo transfer with embryo selected by preimplantation genetic screening using next-generation sequencing versus morphologic assessment. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perfetto CO, Murugappan G, Lathi RB. Time to next pregnancy in spontaneous pregnancies versus treatment cycles in fertile patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Res Pract. 2015;1:5.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2054-7099-1-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murugappan G, Ohno MS, Lathi RB. Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1215–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee HL, McCulloh DH, Hodes-Wertz B, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(3):435–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0417-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang J, Yan L, Lu S, Zhao N, Qiao J. Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(4):487–93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0875-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Orvieto R. Re-analysis of aneuploidy blastocysts with an inner cell mass and different regional trophectoderm cells. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(6):827.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0914-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu J, Wang W, Sun X, Liu L, Jin H, Li M, Witz C, Williams D, Griffith J, Skorupski J, Haddad G, Gill J. DNA microarray reveals that high proportions of human blastocysts from women of advanced maternal age are aneuploid and mosaic. Biol Reprod. 2012;87(6):148.  https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.112.103192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, Ryan A, Smotrich D, Rabinowitz M, Murray MJ. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(12):944–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaq062.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, Goodall NN, Mania A, Griffiths T, Gordon A, Wells D. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(2):480–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Northrop LE, Treff NR, Levy B, Scott RT Jr. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(8):590–600.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaq037.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    James RM, West JD. A chimaeric animal model for confined placental mosaicism. Hum Genet. 1994;93(5):603–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Patassini C, Dusi L, Sanges F, Buffo L, Venturella R, Rienzi L. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):199–208.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Munne S, Alikani M, Ribustello L, Colls P, Martinez-Ortiz PA, McCulloh DH, Referring Physician G. Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):743–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sekhon L, Shaia K, Santistevan A, Cohn KH, Lee JA, Beim PY, Copperman AB. The cumulative dose of gonadotropins used for controlled ovarian stimulation does not influence the odds of embryonic aneuploidy in patients with normal ovarian response. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(6):749–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0909-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Infertility and Reproductive SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations