Preimplantation genetic screening is alive and very well: really?

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.