One swallow does not make a summer

Between innovation and precaution: how did offspring safety considerations play a role in strategies of introducing new reproductive techniques?

The field of reproductive medicine has been criticized for introducing ARTs without systematic research on possible safety risks and for failing to meet the standards of evidence-based innovation held elsewhere in medicine. In this paper, firstly, we ask whether ‘responsible innovation’ has been a concern for the field, and if so, how it has understood the practical implications of this idea for the development and introduction of potentially risky new ARTs. Secondly, we consider whether the field has indeed fallen short of its responsibilities in this respect, and if so, how things can be improved. To answer these questions, we present three case studies involving the introduction of a new reproductive technology: ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing and mitochondrial replacement therapy. As a framework for analyzing these cases, we used Per Sandin’s account of the four dimensions of dealing with risks (threat, uncertainty, action, command) that are central to debates about the possible role of the so-called precautionary principle. We conclude that, although offspring safety concerns have been on the agenda of the debate about bringing the relevant technologies to the clinic, systematic safety and effectiveness studies were not always conducted. As professionals in assisted reproduction have a responsibility to take account of the welfare of the children they are creating, we suggest a policy of proceeding with systematic caution. Legal measures may be needed to ensure that professional guidance is followed in practice. Finally, an open question concerns the threshold for acceptable risk in the context of introducing new ARTs. Multiple stakeholders, including professional societies and patient organizations, should have a role in the urgent debate about this.

Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review

The hypothesis of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGS) was first proposed 20 years ago, suggesting that elimination of aneuploid embryos prior to transfer will improve implantation rates of remaining embryos during in vitro fertilization (IVF), increase pregnancy and live birth rates and reduce miscarriages. The aforementioned improved outcome was based on 5 essential assumptions: (i) Most IVF cycles fail because of aneuploid embryos. (ii) Their elimination prior to embryo transfer will improve IVF outcomes. (iii) A single trophectoderm biopsy (TEB) at blastocyst stage is representative of the whole TE. (iv) TE ploidy reliably represents the inner cell mass (ICM). (v) Ploidy does not change (i.e., self-correct) downstream from blastocyst stage. We aim to offer a review of the aforementioned assumptions and challenge the general hypothesis of PGS. We reviewed 455 publications, which as of January 20, 2017 were listed in PubMed under the search phrase < preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for aneuploidy>. The literature review was performed by both authors who agreed on the final 55 references. Various reports over the last 18 months have raised significant questions not only about the basic clinical utility of PGS but the biological underpinnings of the hypothesis, the technical ability of a single trophectoderm (TE) biopsy to accurately assess an embryo’s ploidy, and suggested that PGS actually negatively affects IVF outcomes while not affecting miscarriage rates. Moreover, due to high rates of false positive diagnoses as a consequence of high mosaicism rates in TE, PGS leads to the discarding of large numbers of normal embryos with potential for normal euploid pregnancies if transferred rather than disposed of. We found all 5 basic assumptions underlying the hypothesis of PGS to be unsupported: (i) The association of embryo aneuploidy with IVF failure has to be reevaluated in view how much more common TE mosaicism is than has until recently been appreciated. (ii) Reliable elimination of presumed aneuploid embryos prior to embryo transfer appears unrealistic. (iii) Mathematical models demonstrate that a single TEB cannot provide reliable information about the whole TE. (iv) TE does not reliably reflect the ICM. (v) Embryos, likely, still have strong innate ability to self-correct downstream from blastocyst stage, with ICM doing so better than TE. The hypothesis of PGS, therefore, no longer appears supportable. With all 5 basic assumptions underlying the hypothesis of PGS demonstrated to have been mistaken, the hypothesis of PGS, itself, appears to be discredited. Clinical use of PGS for the purpose of IVF outcome improvements should, therefore, going forward be restricted to research studies.

Novel embryo selection techniques to increase embryo implantation in IVF attempts

PURPOSE

The final success of an IVF attempt depends on several steps and decisions taken during the ovarian stimulation, the oocyte retrieval, the embryo culture and the embryo transfer. The final selection of the embryos most likely to implant is the final step in this process and the responsibility of the lab. Apart from strict morphologic criteria that historically have been used in embryo selection, additional information on genetic, metabolomic and morphokinetic characteristics of the embryo is recently combined to morphology to select the embryo most likely to produce a pregnancy. In this manuscript, we review the most recent information on the current methods used for embryo selection presenting the predictive capability of each one.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for published studies using appropriate key words and phrases with no limits placed on time.

RESULTS

It seems that the combination of morphologic criteria in conjunction to embryo kinetics as documented by time-lapse technology provides the most reliable information on embryo quality. Blastocyst biopsy with subsequent comprehensive chromosome analysis allows the selection of the euploid embryos with the higher implantation potential.

CONCLUSION

Embryo time-lapse imaging and blastocyst biopsy combined to comprehensive chromosome analysis are the most promising technologies to increase pregnancy rates and reduce the possibility of multiple pregnancies. However, further studies will demonstrate the capability of routinely using these technologies to significantly improve IVF outcomes.

The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists

STUDY QUESTION

We wanted to probe the opinions and current practices on preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), and more specifically on PGS in its newest form: PGS 2.0?

STUDY FINDING

Consensus is lacking on which patient groups, if any at all, can benefit from PGS 2.0 and, a fortiori, whether all IVF patients should be offered PGS.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

It is clear from all experts that PGS 2.0 can be defined as biopsy at the blastocyst stage followed by comprehensive chromosome screening and possibly combined with vitrification. Most agree that mosaicism is less of an issue at the blastocyst stage than at the cleavage stage but whether mosaicism is no issue at all at the blastocyst stage is currently called into question.

STUDY DESIGN, SAMPLES/MATERIALS, METHODS

A questionnaire was developed on the three major aspects of PGS 2.0: the Why, with general questions such as PGS 2.0 indications; the How, specifically on genetic analysis methods; the When, on the ideal method and timing of embryo biopsy. Thirty-five colleagues have been selected to address these questions on the basis of their experience with PGS, and demonstrated by peer-reviewed publications, presentations at meetings and participation in the discussion. The first group of experts who were asked about 'The Why' comprised fertility experts, the second group of molecular biologists were asked about 'The How' and the third group of embryologists were asked about 'The When'. Furthermore, the geographical distribution of the experts has been taken into account. Thirty have filled in the questionnaire as well as actively participated in the redaction of the current paper.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 30 participants were from Europe (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK) and the USA. Array comparative genome hybridization is the most widely used method amongst the participants, but it is slowly being replaced by massive parallel sequencing. Most participants offering PGS 2.0 to their patients prefer blastocyst biopsy. The high efficiency of vitrification of blastocysts has added a layer of complexity to the discussion, and it is not clear whether PGS in combination with vitrification, PGS alone, or vitrification alone, followed by serial thawing and eSET will be the favoured approach. The opinions range from in favour of the introduction of PGS 2.0 for all IVF patients, over the proposal to use PGS as a tool to rank embryos according to their implantation potential, to scepticism towards PGS pending a positive outcome of robust, reliable and large-scale RCTs in distinct patient groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Care was taken to obtain a wide spectrum of views from carefully chosen experts. However, not all invited experts agreed to participate, which explains a lack of geographical coverage in some areas, for example China. This paper is a collation of current practices and opinions, and it was outside the scope of this study to bring a scientific, once-and-for-all solution to the ongoing debate.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This paper is unique in that it brings together opinions on PGS 2.0 from all different perspectives and gives an overview of currently applied technologies as well as potential future developments. It will be a useful reference for fertility specialists with an expertise outside reproductive genetics.

LARGE SCALE DATA

none.

STUDY FUNDING AND COMPETING INTERESTS

No specific funding was obtained to conduct this questionnaire.

Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Embryonic aneuploidy is highly prevalent in IVF cycles and contributes to decreased implantation rates, IVF cycle failure and early pregnancy loss. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) selects the most competent (euploid) embryos for transfer, and has been proposed to improve IVF outcomes. Use of PGS with fluorescence-in-situ hybridization technology after day 3 embryo biopsy (PGS-v1) significantly lowers live birth rates and is not recommended for use. Comprehensive chromosome screening technology, which assesses the whole chromosome complement, can be achieved using different genetic platforms. Whether PGS using comprehensive chromosome screening after blastocyst biopsy (PGS-v2) improves IVF outcomes remains to be determined. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted on PGS-v2. Three trials met full inclusion criteria, comparing PGS-v2 and routine IVF care. PGS-v2 is associated with higher clinical implantation rates, and higher ongoing pregnancy rates when the same number of embryos is transferred in both PGS and control groups. Additionally, PGS-v2 improves embryo selection in eSET practice, maintaining the same ongoing pregnancy rates between PGS and control groups, while sharply decreasing multiple pregnancy rates. These results stem from good-prognosis patients undergoing IVF. Whether these findings can be extrapolated to poor-prognosis patients with decreased ovarian reserve remains to be determined.

Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review

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.