medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Number 07

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (07)

Analysis of 5,789 trophectoderm biopsies: clinical outcomes and pregnancy probability in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles

Calull BA, González OC, Cancino VP, Ramírez MAA, Gutiérrez GAM, Gutiérrez GAM

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 275-284
PDF size: 198.40 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the rate of euploidy, clinical outcomes, and the probability of achieving pregnancy as a function of maternal age, biopsied blastocysts, and embryo quality.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective and descriptive study performed to evaluate trophectoderm biopsies from cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy of patients seen at Vida Genetics (León, Guanajuato) from November 2017 to March 2023.
Resultados: 5,789 trophectoderm biopsies from 1,442 cycles of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by massive sequencing were evaluated in women aged 18 to 48 years. The overall euploidy rate per cycle was 36.3%, aneuploidy 57.2%, and mosaicism 6.5%. The euploidy rate decreased with increasing maternal age (75.0% at 18 years, 0% at 47-48 years). Good quality embryos had a higher euploidy rate (50.0%) compared to fair quality (47.0%) and poor quality (31.7%) (p ‹ 0.0001). Embryos biopsied on day 5 had higher euploidy rates (42.7%) compared to day 6 (32.0%) and day 7 (27.2%) (p ‹ 0.0001). The clinical pregnancy rate was 60.4%, implantation 57.2% and miscarriage 11.2%. The probability of achieving at least one euploid embryo was higher in patients with a higher number of biopsied blastocysts. The probability of achieving pregnancy with a euploid embryo was influenced by the quality of the transferred embryo.
Conclusions: The association between advanced maternal age and the rate of aneuploidy is confirmed. The influence of embryo quality and day of biopsy on the outcome of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and the importance of embryo quality for treatment success rates are highlighted.


REFERENCES

  1. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: The genesisof human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2: 280-91.https://doi.org/10.1038/35066065

  2. Macklon NS, Geraedts JPM, Fauser BCJM. Conception toongoing pregnancy: The “black box” of early pregnancyloss. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 333-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.4.333.

  3. Kort DH, Chia G, Treff NR, Tanaka AJ, et al. Human embryoscommonly form abnormal nuclei during development: Amechanism of DNA damage, embryonic aneuploidy, anddevelopmental arrest. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 312-23.https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev281

  4. Ottolini CS, Kitchen J, Xanthopoulou L, Gordon T, et al.Tripolar mitosis and partitioning of the genome arrests humanpreimplantation development in vitro. Sci Rep 2017;7: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09693-1

  5. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. Diagnosis and clinicalmanagement of duplications and deletions. FertilSteril 2017; 107: 12-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.002

  6. Capalbo A, Poli M, Jalas C, et al. On the reproductive capabilitiesof aneuploid human preimplantation embryos. Am JHum Genet 2022; 109: 1572-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.07.009

  7. Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, et al. Single embryotransfer with comprehensive chromosome screening resultsin improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreasedmiscarriage rates. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1217-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des020

  8. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, et al. Blastocystbiopsy with comprehensive chromosome screeningand fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitrofertilization implantation and delivery rates: A randomizedcontrolled trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 697-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.035

  9. Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M, Grifo J, et al. Diminishedeffect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantationgenetic diagnosis with array comparative genomichybridization. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1695-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.2002

  10. Simon AL, Kiehl M, Fischer E, Proctor JG, et al. Pregnancyoutcomes from more than 1,800 in vitro fertilizationcycles with the use of 24-chromosome single-nucleotidepolymorphism -based preimplantation genetic testing foraneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 113-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.026

  11. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, et al. Preimplantationgenetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology asselection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transferin good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomizedclinical trial. Fertil Steril 2019; 112: 1071-79.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.1346

  12. Pirtea P, De Ziegler D, Tao X, Sun L, et al. Rate of truerecurrent implantation failure is low: results of threesuccessive frozen euploid single embryo transfers. FertilSteril 2021; 115: 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.002

  13. Bhatt SJ, Marchetto NM, Roy J, Morelli SS, et al. Pregnancyoutcomes following in vitro fertilization frozen embryotransfer (IVF-FET) with or without preimplantation genetictesting for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in women with recurrentpregnancy loss (RPL): a SART-CORS study. Hum Reprod2021; 36: 2339-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab117

  14. Calull Bagó A, Izaguirre Hernández MT, Cancino Villarreal P,González Ortega C, et al. The importance of standardizingcriteria for PGT-A interpretation of blastocysts analyzedby next-generation sequencing. J BRA Assist Reprod2023; 27 (3): 453-62. https://doi.org/doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20230011

  15. Calull Bagó A, Coyotecatl Ramírez C, Piña Aguilar RE,Cancino Villarreal P, Gutiérrez Gutiérrez AM. Análisisdel mosaicismo en blastocistos mediante secuenciaciónmasiva: cromosomas afectados y relación con la edadmaterna. Reprod 2020; 11: 1-8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org /10.24245/rmmr. v11id.4037

  16. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, et al. Reprintof: Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancyoutcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. FertilSteril 2019; 112: e81-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.08.077

  17. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, et al. Thenature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the femalepartner: A review of 15,169 consecutive trophectodermbiopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomalscreening. Fertil Steril 2014; 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004

  18. Walters-Sen L, Neitzel D, Bristow SL, Mitchell A, et al. Experienceanalysing over 190,000 embryo trophectodermbiopsies using a novel FAST-SeqS preimplantation genetictesting assay. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 44: 228-38.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.022

  19. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, Glassner M, et al. Array CGHanalysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the numberof embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24: 614-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.009

  20. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, et al. Correlationbetween standard blastocyst morphology, euploidyand implantation: An observational study in two centersinvolving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:1173-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu033

  21. Minasi MG, Colasante A, Riccio T, Ruberti A, et al. Correlationbetween aneuploidy, standard morphology evaluationand morphokinetic development in 1730 biopsied blastocysts:A consecutive case series study. Hum Reprod 2016;31: 2245-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew183

  22. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Garcia-Pascual C, Peinado V, et al.Clinical application of embryo aneuploidy testing by nextgenerationsequencing. Biol Reprod 2019; 101: 1083-90.https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioz019.

  23. Tong J, Niu Y, Wan A, Zhang T. Comparison of day 5 blastocystwith day 6 blastocyst: Evidence from NGS-based PGT-Aresults. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39: 369-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02397-0

  24. Zegers-Hochschild F, Crosby JA, Musri C, de Souza M doCB, Martinez AG, et al. Assisted reproductive technologyin Latin America: the Latin American Registry, 2017. ReprodBiomed Online 2020; 41: 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.02.004

  25. Farias AFS, Chavez-Badiola A, Mendizabal-Ruiz G, Valencia-Murillo R, et al. Automated identification of blastocystregions at different development stages. Sci Rep 2023;13: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26386-6

  26. Munné S, Alikani M, Ribustello L, Colls P, et al. Euploidyrates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertilitycenters. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 743-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex031

  27. Treff NR, Marin D. The “mosaic” embryo: misconceptionsand misinterpretations in preimplantation genetic testingfor aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2021; 116: 1205-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.06.027




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com