UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy

Authors
Glenn L Schattman, MD
Kangpu Xu, PhD, HCLD
Section Editor
Louise Wilkins-Haug, MD, PhD
Deputy Editor
Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG

INTRODUCTION

There are two types of genetic testing of an embryo prior to transfer: preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Both procedures require in vitro fertilization even if the couple is not subfertile, biopsy of in vitro embryos for genetic testing, and transfer of embryos based on the results of genetic testing. Genetic testing can also be performed on the first and second polar bodies obtained from mature oocytes prior to and after fertilization.

This topic will discuss issues related to PGS. PGD is reviewed separately. (See "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis".)

ROLE OF PGS VERSUS PGD

Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) – The goal of PGS is to identify de-novo aneuploidy, including subchromosomal deletions and additions, in embryos of couples known (or presumed) to be euploid. Forty to 60 percent of preimplantation embryos are aneuploid, which is one potential etiology for the relatively low implantation efficiency of both natural conceptions and in vitro fertilization (IVF) [1]. Theoretically, performing IVF, determining the genetic status (chromosomal copy numbers) of the preimplantation embryos, and then selecting only euploid embryos for embryo transfer should increase the frequency of successful implantation, pregnancy, and live birth. This process should also reduce multiple pregnancy rates by allowing efficient single embryo transfers. Examination of embryo morphology and rate of development under the microscope or with a time-lapse system is routinely performed for this purpose, but is an inexact method for selecting embryos with the highest implantation potential or distinguishing euploid embryos from aneuploid embryos.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) – The goal of PGD is to establish a pregnancy that is unaffected by a specific gene mutation(s) when one or both biologic parents is a known carrier of a specific gene mutation(s). Additionally, PGD can be used to identify an unbalanced chromosomal complement when one parent is a carrier of a balanced translocation or chromosomal rearrangement. It is also used to select embryos for transfer that have a specific genetic complement, such as particular sex chromosomes or human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type. For example, if a child has Fanconi anemia, a sibling with a compatible HLA type and absence of Fanconi anemia could become a donor for hematopoietic cell transplantation. (See "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis", section on 'Reasons couples choose to undergo PGD'.)

BLASTOCYST BIOPSY

Advantages versus alternative procedures — Trophectoderm biopsy of embryos at the blastocyst stage rather than the cleavage stage (day 3 of development) is becoming more common. This is mainly due to improvements in culture conditions, resulting in more consistent survival of cultured embryos to the blastocyst stage; improvements in biopsy techniques; improvements in cryopreservation of blastocysts, mainly vitrification; and evidence that cleavage stage biopsy reduces the take-home baby rate compared with not performing the biopsy [2].

                 

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Nov 2016. | This topic last updated: Fri May 13 00:00:00 GMT 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis increases the implantation rate in human in vitro fertilization by avoiding the transfer of chromosomally abnormal embryos. Fertil Steril 1997; 68:1128.
  2. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17:454.
  3. Hardy K, Handyside AH, Winston RM. The human blastocyst: cell number, death and allocation during late preimplantation development in vitro. Development 1989; 107:597.
  4. Carson SA, Gentry WL, Smith AL, Buster JE. Trophectoderm microbiopsy in murine blastocysts: comparison of four methods. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10:427.
  5. Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100:624.
  6. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinical-assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:667.
  7. Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sánchez-García J, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 95:953.
  8. Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17:841.
  9. Harper JC, Harton G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril 2010; 94:1173.
  10. Tobler KJ, Brezina PR, Benner AT, et al. Two different microarray technologies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening, due to reciprocal translocation imbalances, demonstrate equivalent euploidy and clinical pregnancy rates. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31:843.
  11. Yang Z, Lin J, Zhang J, et al. Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study. BMC Med Genomics 2015; 8:30.
  12. Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:2802.
  13. Yang YS, Chang SP, Chen HF, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening of blastocysts by multiplex qPCR followed by fresh embryo transfer: validation and verification. Mol Cytogenet 2015; 8:49.
  14. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, et al. Technical Update: Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015; 37:451.
  15. Munné S, Fragouli E, Colls P, et al. Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12-chromosome FISH test. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20:92.
  16. Kuliev A, Cieslak J, Ilkevitch Y, Verlinsky Y. Chromosomal abnormalities in a series of 6,733 human oocytes in preimplantation diagnosis for age-related aneuploidies. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:54.
  17. Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28:1115.
  18. Goossens V, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:481.
  19. Munné S, Weier HU, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod 1994; 51:373.
  20. Brezina PR, Kutteh WH. Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ 2015; 350:g7611.
  21. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy Babies after Intrauterine Transfer of Mosaic Aneuploid Blastocysts. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2089.
  22. Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, et al. Births of three normal neonates after transfer of “aneuploid” embryos: Evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients http://www.preventmiscarriage.com/documents/Live-births-of-3-normal-neonates.pdf (Accessed on January 26, 2016).
  23. Baart EB, Martini E, van den Berg I, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2006; 21:223.
  24. Magli MC, Jones GM, Gras L, et al. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:1781.
  25. Li M, DeUgarte CM, Surrey M, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:1395.
  26. Munné S, Velilla E, Colls P, et al. Self-correction of chromosomally abnormal embryos in culture and implications for stem cell production. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:1328.
  27. Pandian Z, Marjoribanks J, Ozturk O, et al. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD003416.
  28. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:1155.
  29. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100:100.
  30. 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; 210:157.e1.
  31. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2392.
  32. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munné S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:837.
  33. Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6:232.
  34. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:1173.
  35. Meldrum DR. Introduction: Examining the many potential reasons why euploid blastocysts do not always result in viable pregnancies: part 1. Fertil Steril 2016; 105:545.
  36. Blockeel C, Schutyser V, De Vos A, et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17:848.
  37. 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; 99:1400.
  38. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 2014; 101:656.
  39. Wilton L, Williamson R, McBain J, et al. Birth of a healthy infant after preimplantation confirmation of euploidy by comparative genomic hybridization. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1537.
  40. Eiben B, Bartels I, Bähr-Porsch S, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of 750 spontaneous abortions with the direct-preparation method of chorionic villi and its implications for studying genetic causes of pregnancy wastage. Am J Hum Genet 1990; 47:656.
  41. Rubio C, Simón C, Vidal F, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:182.
  42. Kahraman S, Benkhalifa M, Donmez E, et al. The results of aneuploidy screening in 276 couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24:307.
  43. Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in patients with unexplained recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 83:393.
  44. Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:300.
  45. Clifford K, Rai R, Regan L. Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:387.
  46. Harper JC, de Die-Smulders C, Goossens V, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection VII: cycles from January to December 2004 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2005. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:741.
  47. Strom CM, Levin R, Strom S, et al. Neonatal outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis by polar body removal: the first 109 infants. Pediatrics 2000; 106:650.
  48. Liebaers I, Desmyttere S, Verpoest W, et al. Report on a consecutive series of 581 children born after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2010; 25:275.
  49. Nekkebroeck J, Bonduelle M, Desmyttere S, et al. Mental and psychomotor development of 2-year-old children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:1560.
  50. Middelburg KJ, van der Heide M, Houtzager B, et al. Mental, psychomotor, neurologic, and behavioral outcomes of 2-year-old children born after preimplantation genetic screening: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:165.
  51. Beukers F, van der Heide M, Middelburg KJ, et al. 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; 99:408.
  52. Gebhart MB, Hines RS, Penman A, Holland AC. How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening? Fertil Steril 2016; 105:188.