Efficacy of PGT in IVF cycles: experience of clinics group

Close metadata

INTRODUCTION

The good IVF laboratory is the one offering preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) service. However, large-scale IVF centers can afford the expense of equipment and software, the strong skills and knowledge of professionals including analysis and interpretation of bioinformatics data. Here, we report the experience of Genom clinics group with PGT cycles on transport scheme.

AIM OF STUDY

To assess the efficacy of PGT in IVF cycles in different age groups.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In retrospective cohort study 550 embryos were included. Four groups were created based on maternal age: 1^st group ≤32 years old (n=166), 2^nd group 33—35 years (n=135), 3^rd group 36—40 years (n=143) and 4^th group ≥41years (n=106). Only good quality blastocysts were subjected for biopsy (Grade AA, AB, BA, BB). Genetic testing was conducted by NGS platform. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA test. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Euploidy rate in the 1^st group was 56.6%, in the 2^nd group — 50.3%, in the 3^rd group — 48.2% and in the 4^th group — 24.5%; although, euploidy rates among age group do not differ statistically (P-value = 0.462). Clinical pregnancy rate and livebirth in the 1^st group 65.3% and 48%, in the 2^nd group — 47.5% and 37.8%, in the 3^rd group — 50.6% and 37.3% and in the 4^th group — 43.5% and 43.5% respectively. These results do not differ statistically between age groups, P-value = 0.228 and 0.731 respectively. Successful biopsy rate was 98.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate decrease in the number of euploid embryos with increase in maternal age. The highest efficacy of PGT is observed in the 4^th group (≥41 years). The clinical pregnancy rate and livebirth fluctuate among clinics, perhaps, due to other factors as well. Three-year experience with PGT cycles on transport scheme demonstrates that collaboration between IVF and genetic laboratories is a feasible option.

Keywords:

PGT

PGT-A

TE (trophectoderm)

IVF

infertility

biopsy

Authors:

Firsova N.V.

«Alyans Clinic» reproduction center

Nigmatova N.P.

«Genom-Astana» human reproduction center

Safronova K.A.

«Genom-Volga» reproduction center

Gartsman A.A.

«Genom-Balt» reproduction center

Kanbekova O.R.

«Genom-Tomsk» human reproduction unit

Balyberdina M.A.

«Genom-Don» human reproduction center

Gordeeva I.V.

«Alyans Clinic» reproduction center

Shchigolev V.N.

«Genom» — MedMa company group

Received:

08.12.2021

Accepted:

11.03.2021

List of references:

Smirnova AA, Zyryaeva NA, Anschina MB. Age-related alterations and the risk of chromosomal aberrations in human oocytes (literature review). Problemy reprodukcii. 2019;25(2):16-26. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20192502116
Amanov AT, Tuleyeva LN, Makazhanov MA, Batyrbekov MT, Dakenova GB. The study of the level of aneuploidy in spermatozoa of patients with pathozoospermia. Medicina (Almaty). 2018;194(8):45-48. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31082/1728-452X-2018-194-8-45-48
Gardner RJM, Suitherland HR. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic counseling. Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics. Oxford University Press; 5th edition; 2018.
Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J, Jooss T, Manuel B, Matsuura J, Matsuyama A, Wilson C, Yamane JA, Jacobs PA. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Annals of Human Genetics. 1980;44(2):151-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1980.tb00955.x
Petracchi F, Colaci DS, Igarzabal L, Gadow E. Cytogenetic analysis of first trimester pregnancy loss. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2009;104(3):243-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.10.014
Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, De Mouzon J, Sokol R, Rienzi L, Sunde A, Schmidt L, Cooke ID, Simpson JL, Van der Poel S. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108(3):393-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005
Delhanty JD, Griffin DK, Handyside AH, Harper J, Atkinson GH, Pieters MH, Winston RM. Detection of aneuploidy and chromosomal mosaicism in human embryos during preimplantation sex determination by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Human Molecular Genetics. 1993;2(8):1183-1185. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/2.8.1183
Munné S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, Tarozzi N, Borini A, Becker A, Zhang J, Maxwell S, Grifo J, Babariya D, Wells D, Fragouli E. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108(1):62-71.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.002
Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Spizzichino L, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, Kokocinski F, Michel CE. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing-based protocol for 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening of embryos. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;101(5): 1375-1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.051
Munné S, Wells D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;107(5):1085-1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.024
Yang Z, Lin J, Zhang J, Fong WI, Li P, Zhao R, Liu X, Podevin W, Kuang Y, Liu J. Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening; a pilot study. BMC Medical Genomics. 2015;8:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-015-0110-4
Friedenthal J, Maxwell S, Munné S, Kramer Y, McCulloh D, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertility and Sterility. 2018;109(4):627-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.017
Aleksandrova NV, Shubina ES, Ekimov AN, Kodyleva TA, Mukosey IS, Makarova NP, Kulakova EV, Levkov LA, Barkov IY, Trofimov DY, Sukhikh GT. Comparative results of preimplantation genetic screening by array comparative genomic hybridization and new-generation sequencing. Molekulyarnaya biologiya. 2017;51(2): 269-273. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.7868/S0026898417010025
Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, Delhanty J, Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Griesinger G, Grifo J, Handyside A, Harper J, Kokkali G, Mastenbroek S, Meldrum D, Meseguer M, Montag M, Munné S, Rienzi L, Rubio C, Scott K, Scott R, Simon C, Swain J, Treff N, Ubaldi F, Vassena R, Vermeesch JR, Verpoest W, Wells D, Geraedts J. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Molecular Human Reproduction. 2016;22(8):845-857. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaw034
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D. Toward Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond. London: Parthenon Publishing; 1999.
Formuly dlya statisticheskogo analiza. Accessed May 25, 2021. (In Russ.). https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/anova/default2.aspx
Marquard K, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Lathi RB. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertility and Sterility. 2010;94(4):1473-1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.041
Dang TT, Phung TM, Le H, Nguyen TB, Nguyen TS, Nguyen TL, Nga VT, Chu DT, Hoang VL, Nguyen DB. Preimplantation Genetic Testing of Aneuploidy by Next Generation Sequencing: Association of Maternal Age and Chromosomal Abnormalities of Blastocyst. Open Access. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2019; 7(24):4427-4431. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.875
Dolgushina NV, Desyatnikova NV, Korotchenko OE, Syrkasheva AG, Kulakova EV, Ilyina EO. The influence of excessive body mass index and obesity on embryo aneuploidy and assisted reproduction technology outcome. Problemy Reprodukcii. 2017;23(1):48-53. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/repro201723148-53
Korotchenko OE, Syrkasheva AG, Kalinina EA. Preimplantation genetic screening in patients with recurrent miscarriage: the risk factors for embryo aneuploidy. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya. 2017;18(4): 48-52. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/2303-9698-2017-00006
Munne S, Cohen J. Advanced maternal age patients benefit from preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Fertililty and Sterility. 2017;107(5):1145-1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.015
Hoyos LR, Cheng CC, Brennan L, Hubert G, Wang B, Buyalos RP, Quinn M, Shamonki M. Euploid rates among oocyte donors: is there an optimal age for donation? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2020;37(3):589-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01694-w
Maxwell SM, Grifo JA. Should every embryo undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy? A review of the modern approach to in vitro fertilization. Best Practice and Research; Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2018;53:38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.07.005
Massie JA, Shahine LK, Milki AA, Westphal LM, Lathi RB. Ovarian stimulation and the risk of aneuploid conceptions. Fertility and Sterility. 2011;95(3):970-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.1088
Zhang JN, Wang J, Peng HM, Ma MY, Wang H, Zhao CC, Jiao MY, Li XH, Yao YQ. Effect of exogenous gonadotropin dosage on embryo aneuploidy rate and pregnancy outcome in patients of preimplantation genetic test. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2020;55(4): 253-258. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20200309-00198
Jiang X, Yan J, Sheng Y, Sun M, Cui L, Chen Z-J. Low anti-Müllerian hormone concentration is associated with increased risk of embryonic aneuploidy in women of advanced age. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2018;37(2):178-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.04.039
Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Human Reproduction. 2014;29(9):1846-1850. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu163
Neal SA, Morin SJ, Franasiak JM, Goodman LR, Juneau CR, Forman EJ, Werner MD, Richard T, Scott RS Jr. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage. Fertility and Sterility. 2018;110(5):896-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.021

Close metadata