Role of preimplantation genetic screening in effectiveness of programs of assisted reproductive technologies in women with recurrent miscarriage (a review)

Close metadata

Recommended articles:

Fertility-sparing treatment in cancer patients: how can we help in the 21st century?. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(1):26-63

Histological changes in the endometrium during intrauterine use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in assisted reproductive technology programs. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(1):82-91

The role of intergenic interactions in the formation of perinatal complications of gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women after assisted reproductive technologies. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(2):51-61

Predictors of success of in vitro fertilization with cryotransfer in patients with chronic endometritis according to laser conversion testing. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(2):62-73

Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of placenta accreta. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(3):43-49

Calcium-phosphorus metabolism and assisted reproductive technologies: intersection points. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(4):19-28

Artificial intelligent systems in the development of assisted reproductive technologies. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2024;(2):19-29

Primary pulmonary myxoid sarcoma with EWSR1-CREB1 fusion. Russian Journal of Archive of Pathology. 2024;(2):37-41

Modern approach to the diagnosis of microcirculatory disorders in obstetrics. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2024;(3):30-35

Correlation dependence of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 levels and follicular fluid morphology in patients with combined (uterine myoma and endometriosis) infertility in the ART-programs. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2024;(4):21-28

Objective — to perform a systematic analysis of the current published data from the point of view of clinical and economic efficiency of the use of preimplantation genetic screening in women with recurrent miscarriage. Material and methods. Search of publications by keywords was performed with use of electronic database of Medline, PubMed and Cochrane Library. The review includes the data of articles over the last 15 years. Results. The most part of researches is retrospective. Randomized controlled researches are not more than 20% of the total amount of publications on the subject. Most of the studies is based on the use of FISH technique with day 3 embryo biopsy. Increase in effectiveness of ART as a result of the use of FISH method in the majority of the studies have not been identified. Trophectoderm biopsy at a stage of a blastocyste is considered to be more accurate and safe method, however concerning its clinical effectiveness opinions of researchers are various. Most studies do not confirm economic efficiency of the use of PGS in patients with recurrent miscarriage. Conclusion. Given the mixed results of PGS in patients with recurrent miscarriage, most researchers agree on the need for further work in this direction.

Keywords:

recurrent miscarriage

embryo aneuploidy

preimplantation genetic screening

fluorescence in situ hybridization

comparative genomic hybridization

in-vitro fertilization

assisted reproductive technologies

Authors:

Korotchenko O.E.

Federal State Budget Institution «Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology» Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia, 117997

Dolgushina N.V.

FGBU "Nauchnyĭ tsentr akusherstva, ginekologii i perinatologii im. akad. V.I. Kulakova" Minzdrava Rossii, Moskva, Rossiia, 117815

Syrkasheva A.G.

Federal State Budget Institution «Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology» (dir. — acad. RAN G.T. Sukhikh) Moscow, Russia 117997

Kulakova E.V.

Department of Pediatrics, Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Stavropol, Russia

List of references:

Sidel'nikova VM. Privychnaya poterya beremennosti. M.: Triada-X. 2002. (In Russ.).
Sidel'nikova VM, Sukhikh GT. Nevynashivanie beremennosti. M.: MIA. 2010. (In Russ.).
Stephenson MD, Kutteh W. Evaluation and management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(1):132-145. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31802f1c28
Stern JJ, Dorfmann AD, Gutiérrez-Najar AJ, Cerrillo M, Coulam CB. Frequency of abnormal karyotypes among abortuses from women with and without a history of recurrent spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(2):250-253. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58079-0
Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(2):300-304. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00495-1
Rubio C, Simón C, Vidal F, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(1):182-188. doi:10.1093/humrep/deg015
Garrisi JG, Colls P, Ferry KM, Zheng X, Garrisi MG, Munné S. Effect of infertility, maternal age, and number of previous miscarriages on the outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(1):288-295. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.056
Munné S, Chen S, Fischer J, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):331-335. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.027
Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: Two randomized trials. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1400-1407. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.041
Werlin L, Rodi I, DeCherney A, Marello E, Hill D, Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as both a therapeutic and diagnostic tool in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):467-468. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00605-8
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 Engl J Med. 2001;345(21):1537-1541. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa011052
Musters AM, Repping S, Korevaar JC, et al. Pregnancy outcome after preimplantation genetic screening or natural conception in couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: A systematic review of the best available evidence. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6). doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.022
Mantzouratou A, Mania A, Fragouli E, et al. Variable aneuploidy mechanisms in embryos from couples with poor reproductive histories undergoing preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1844-1853. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem102
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(2):393-397. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.071
Wilding M, Forman R, Hogewind G, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the treatment of failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer and habitual abortion. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1302-1307. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.028
Colls P, Goodall N, Zheng X, Munné S. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy by testing 12 chromosomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(4):532-538. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.05.002
RubIo C, Buendía P, Rodrigo L, et al. Prognostic factors for preimplantation genetic screening in repeated pregnancy loss. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(5):687-693. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60015-6
Munné S, Fischer J, Warner A, Chen S, Zouves C, Cohen J. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: A multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):326-332. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.10.014
Verlinsky Y, Tur-Kaspa I, Cieslak J, et al. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11(2):219-225. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60961-3
Meyer LR, Klipstein S, Hazlett WD, Nasta T, Mangan P, Karande VC. A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the «good prognosis» patient. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1731-1738. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.162
Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(1):157-162. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.029
Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, 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(12):2849-2858. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh536
Stevens J, Wale P, Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:S249. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.07.664
Debrock S, Melotte C, Spiessens C, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):364-373. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.072
Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:22. doi:10.1186/1477-7827-12-22
Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2806-2812. doi:10.1093/humrep/den217
Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: Back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846-1850. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu163
Treff NR, Ferry KM, Zhao T, Su J, Forman EJ, Scott RT. Cleavage stage embryo biopsy significantly impairs embryonic reproductive potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a novel paired analysis of cotransferred biopsied and non-biopsied sibling embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):S2. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.015
Kwinecka-Dmitriew B, Zakrzewska M, Latos-Bieleńska A, Skrzypczak J. Frequency of chromosomal aberrations in material from abortions. Ginekol Pol. 2010;81(12):896-901. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21395079 Accessed November 2, 2016
Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700-1706. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.015
Hodes-Wertz B, Grifo J, Ghadir S, et al. Idiopathic recurrent miscarriage is caused mostly by aneuploid embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):675-680. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.025
Adler A, Lee HL, McCulloh DH, et al. Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: Comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(4):485-491. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.11.018
Murugappan G, Shahine LK, Perfetto CO, Hickok L, Lathi RB. Intent to treat analysis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) versus expectant management (EM) in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):e95. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.323
Franasiak JM, Barnett R, Hong KH, Werner MD, Scott RT. Proportion of aneuploidy does not impact live birth rate or pregnancy loss rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) undergoing comprehensive chromosome screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):e171-e172. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.585
Gleicher N, Vidali A, Kushnir VA, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) appears unable to correctly determine ploidy of embryos from a single trophectoderm biopsy (TEB). Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):e371. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1055
Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):e59. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.180
Thyer AC, Klein NA, Davis LB, Ball GD. Is Preimplantation Screening Worth the Cost in High Reserve Patients? Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):e37-e38. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.072
Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Grifo J. Preimplantation genetic screening is cost effective in cost per delivery compared to routine in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):e278. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.873

Close metadata