Why do array-CGH (ACGH) euploid embryos miscarry? Reanalysis by NGS reveals undetected abnormalities which would have prevented 56% of the miscarriages

Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing

OBJECTIVE

To determine the pregnancy outcome potential of mosaic embryos, detected by means of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Genetics laboratories.

PATIENT(S)

PGS cycles during which either mosaic or euploid embryos were replaced.

INTERVENTION(S)

Blastocysts were biopsied and processed with the use of NGS, followed by frozen embryo transfer. Trophectoderm (TE) biopsies were classified as mosaic if they had 20%-80% abnormal cells.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation, miscarriage rates, and ongoing implantation rates (OIRs) were compared between euploid and types of mosaic blastocysts.

RESULT(S)

Complex mosaic embryos had a significantly lower OIR (10%) than aneuploidy mosaic (50%), double aneuploidy mosaic (45%), and segmental mosaic (41%). There was a tendency for mosaics with 40%-80% abnormal cells to have a lower OIR than those with <40% (22% vs. 56%). However, few embryos (n = 34) with a mosaic error in 40%-80% of the TE sample were replaced. There was no difference between monosomic and trisomic mosaics or between entire chromosome mosaicism or segmental mosaicism. Implantation rates were significantly higher (70% vs. 53%), miscarriage rates lower (10% vs. 25%), and OIRs higher (63% vs. 40%) after euploid embryo transfer than after mosaic embryo transfer.

CONCLUSION(S)

Forty-one percent of mosaic embryos produced an ongoing implantation. Complex mosaic blastocysts had a lower OIR than other mosaics. Mosaic monosomies performed as well as mosaic trisomies and mosaic segmental aneuploidies. The results suggest that embryos with >40% abnormal cells and those with multiple mosaic abnormalities (chaotic mosaics) are likely to have lower OIRs and should be given low transfer priority.

Causes and estimated incidences of sex-chromosome misdiagnosis in preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy (PGD-A) with comprehensive chromosome analysis has been known to improve pregnancy outcomes. Accuracy in detecting sex chromosomes becomes important when selecting against embryos at risk for sex-linked disorders. A total of 21,356 PGD-A cycles consisting of day-3 (cleavage) or day-5 (blastocyst) biopsies were received at the same laboratory for PGD-A via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH) from multiple fertility centres. The misdiagnosis rates were 0.12% (Wilson 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25%) in day-3 FISH cycles, 0.48% (Wilson 95% CI 0.19 to 1.22%) in day-3 aCGH cycles and 0.0% (Wilson 95% CI 0 to 0.26) in day-5 aCGH cycles. Although rare, the likely causative biological event for true misdiagnosis is embryonic XX/XY mosaicism. Reanalysis of 1219 abnormal cleavage-stage research embryos revealed a 73% incidence of minor and major mosaicism. Only four (0.3%) embryos were found to be diploid and contained XX and XY cells that could potentially account for the misdiagnosis of sex. Our investigation identified errors leading to misdiagnosis and their attribution to specific events during PGD-A testing. The reported misdiagnosis rates suggest that PGD-A for sex determination is highly accurate, particularly when using aCGH applied to blastocyst biopsies.

Human embryo mosaicism: did we drop the ball on chromosomal testing?

There are newly recognized challenges presented by the occurrence of mosaicism in the context of trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. Chromosomal mosaicism, known to be significantly higher in IVF embryos than in later prenatal samples, may contribute to errors in diagnosis. In particular, PGS may result in discarding embryos diagnosed as aneuploid but in which the inner cell mass may be completely or mainly euploid, thus representing a false positive diagnosis. Although less likely, some embryos diagnosed as euploid could be mosaic and contain some aneuploid cells, possibly impacting their implantation potential. The ability of current diagnostic techniques to detect mosaicism is limited by the number and location of TE cells in the biopsy and by the methodology used for chromosomal assessment. The clinical consequences of mosaicism are dependent on the chromosome(s) involved, the developmental stage at which the mosaicism evolved, and whether TE biopsy accurately reflects the status of the inner cell mass that forms the fetus. Consequently, in patients with no euploid embryos identified on PGS, it may be appropriate to consider the transfer of diagnosed aneuploid embryos if the TE biopsy result is a non-viable chromosomal monosomy or triploidy that could not result in a birth. It should be acknowledged in consent forms that mosaicism has the potential to impact test results and that its detection may be below the resolution of the genetic tests being used. This concept represents a major shift in current IVF practice and ought to be considered given the data, or lack thereof, of the impact of mosaicism on IVF/PGS outcomes.