Search

Background: Spent culture medium (SCM) as a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic tests aneuploidy (PGT-A) has been widely discussed. Methods: Seventy-five blastocysts that were donated for research provided a unique possibility in which multiple specimens, including trophectoderm (TE) biopsy, SCM, and paired corresponding whole blastocyst (WB) specimens from the same blastocyst source, could be utilized for the purpose of this preclinical validation. Results: To conduct a validation ploidy concordance assessment, we evaluated the full chromosomal concordance rates between SCM and WB (SCM-to-WB), and between TE and WB (TE-to-WB) as well as sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy. 78.67% (59/75) of NGS results in the SCM group were interpretable, a significantly lower percentage than their corresponding TE and WB groups. This discrepancy manifests itself in intrinsically low quantity and poor integrity DNA from SCM. Subsequently, remarkable differences in full concordance rates (including mosaicism, and segmental aneuploidies) are seen as follows: 32.2% (SCM-to-WB, 19/59) and 69.33% (TE-to-WB, 52/75), (p < 0.001). In such cases, full concordance rates were 27.27% (15/55) in SCM-to-WB, and, 76% (57/75) in TE-to-WB (p < 0.001). Collectively, the NGS data from SCM also translated into lower sensitivities, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), overall diagnostic accuracies, and higher Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR). Conclusions: Our study reveals that DNA is detectable in the majority of SCM samples. Individual chromosomal aberration, such as segmental aneuploidy and mosaicism, can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured. However, TE still provides a more accurate and reliable high-throughput methodology for PGT-A. Meanwhile, cell-free DNA in SCM reporting lacks uniform diagnostic interpretations. Considering that this test is meant to determine which embryos are relegated to be discarded, PGT-A with cell-free DNA in SCM should not be permitted to be applied in routine clinical settings for diagnosis purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has become increasingly apparent that the trophectoderm (TE) at blastocyst stage is much more mosaic than has been appreciated. Whether preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), utilizing a single TE biopsy (TEB), can reliably determine embryo ploidy has, therefore, increasingly been questioned in parallel. Methods: We for that reason here established 2 mathematical models to assess probabilities of false-negative and false-positive results of an on average 6-cell biopsy from an approximately 300-cell TE. This study was a collaborative effort between investigators at The Center for Human Reproduction in New York City and the Center for Studies in Physics and Biology and the Brivanlou Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Molecular Embryology, the latter two both at Rockefeller University in New York City. Results: Both models revealed that even under best case scenario, assuming even distribution of mosaicism in TE (since mosaicism is usually clonal, a highly unlikely scenario), a biopsy of at least 27 TE cells would be required to reach minimal diagnostic predictability from a single TEB. Conclusions: As currently performed, a single TEB is, therefore, mathematically incapable of reliably determining whether an embryo can be transferred or should be discarded. Since a single TEB, as currently performed, apparently is not representative of the complete TE, this study, thus, raises additional concern about the clinical utilization of PGS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To preclude transfer of aneuploid embryos, current preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) usually involves one trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage, assumed to represent embryo ploidy. Whether one such biopsy can correctly assess embryo ploidy has recently, however, been questioned. Methods: This descriptive study investigated accuracy of PGS in two ways. Part I: Two infertile couples donated 11 embryos, previously diagnosed as aneuploid and, therefore, destined to be discarded. They were dissected into 37 anonymized specimens, and sent to another national laboratory for repeat analyses to assess (i) inter-laboratory congruity and (ii) intra-embryo congruity of multiple embryo biopsies in a single laboratory. Part II: Reports on human IVF cycle outcomes after transfer of allegedly aneuploid embryos into 8 infertile patients. Results: Only 2/11 (18.2 %) embryos were identically assessed at two PGS laboratories; 4/11 (36.4 %), on repeat analysis were chromosomally normal, 2 mosaic normal/abnormal, and 5/11 (45.5 %) completely differed in reported aneuploidies. In intra-embryo analyses, 5/10 (50 %) differed between biopsy sites. Eight transfers of previously reported aneuploid embryos resulted in 5 chromosomally normal pregnancies, 4 delivered and 1 ongoing. Three patients did not conceive, though 1 among them experienced a chemical pregnancy. Conclusions: Though populations of both study parts are too small to draw statistically adequately powered conclusions on specific degrees of inaccuracy of PGS, here presented results do raise concerns especially about false-positive diagnoses. While inter-laboratory variations may at least partially be explained by different diagnostic platforms utilized, they cannot explain observed intra-embryo variations, suggesting more frequent trophectoderm mosiaicsm than previously reported. Together with recentl published mouse studies of lineages-specific degrees of survival of aneuploid cells in early stage embryos, these results call into question the biological basis of PGS, based on the assumption that a single trophectoderm biopsy can reliably determine embryo ploidy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The utilization of trophectoderm biopsy combined with comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) tests for embryonic aneuploidy was recently suggested to improve IVF outcome, however, not without criticisms. The ongoing discussion on the unrestricted clinical adoption of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has called for a proper randomized controlled trial (RCT), aiming to further evaluate the cumulative live birth rates (LBRs) following a single oocyte retrieval, utilizing all fresh and frozen embryos. Since this study seems not to appear for various reasons, we present herewith, the hypothetical required RCT based on the hitherto published literature. After implementing data from the hitherto published literature on blastulation and aneuploidy rates, the rate of mosaicism and technical errors and implantation rates/LBRs of non-PGS day-3 and blastocyst and PGS blastocyst, we could clearly demonstrate the superiority of non-PGS embryo (day-3 and blastocyst) transfer over PGS blastocyst transfer, in terms of cumulative LBR (18.2-50 % vs 7.6-12.6 %, respectively). We therefore believe that until the proper, non-hypothetical RCT on the efficacy of this procedure will appear, PGS should be offered only under study conditions, and with appropriate informed consents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only a few years ago the American Society of Assisted Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the British Fertility Society declared preimplantation genetic screening (PGS#1) ineffective in improving in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy rates and in reducing miscarriage rates. A presumably upgraded form of the procedure (PGS#2) has recently been reintroduced, and is here assessed in a systematic review. PGS#2 in comparison to PGS#1 is characterized by: (i) trophectoderm biopsy on day 5/6 embryos in place of day-3 embryo biopsy; and (ii) fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) of limited chromosome numbers is replaced by techniques, allowing aneuploidy assessments of all 24 chromosome pairs. Reviewing the literature, we were unable to identify properly conducted prospective clinical trials in which IVF outcomes were assessed based on "intent to treat". Whether PGS#2 improves IVF outcomes can, therefore, not be determined. Reassessments of data, alleged to support the efficacy of PGS#2, indeed, suggest the opposite. Like with PGS#1, the introduction of PGS#2 into unrestricted IVF practice again appears premature, and threatens to repeat the PGS#1 experience, when thousands of women experienced reductions in IVF pregnancy chances, while expecting improvements. PGS#2 is an unproven and still experimental procedure, which, until evidence suggests otherwise, should only be offered under study conditions, and with appropriate informed consents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]