Improved clinical outcome in women between 38 and 41 years of age by 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening

Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) and live birth rates (LBR) in the USA from 2014 to 2017 and to understand how PGT is being used at a clinic and state level.

METHODS

This study accessed SART data for 2014 to 2017 to determine LBR and the CDC for years 2016 and 2017 to identify PGT usage. Primary cycles included only the first embryo transfer within 1 year of an oocyte retrieval; subsequent cycles included transfers occurring after the first transfer or beyond 1 year of oocyte retrieval.

RESULTS

In the SART data, the number of primary PGT cycles showed a significant monotonic annual increase from 18,805 in 2014 to 54,442 in 2017 (P = 0.042) and subsequent PGT cycles in these years increased from 2946 to 14,361 (P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in primary PGT cycle use by age, where younger women had a greater percentage of PGT treatment cycles than older women. In both PGT and non-PGT cycles, the LBR per oocyte retrieval decreased significantly from 2014 to 2017 (P<0001) and younger women had a significantly higher LBR per oocyte retrieval compared to older women (P < 0.001). The CDC data revealed that in 2016, just 53 (11.4%) clinics used PGT for more than 50% of their cycles, which increased to 99 (21.4%) clinics in 2017 (P< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A growing number of US clinics are offering PGT to their patients. These findings support re-evaluation of the application for PGT.

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.