Committee Opinion No. 406: Prenatal Testing After IVF With Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy

Prenatal screening after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: time to evaluate old strategies

RESEARCH QUESTION

How does first-trimester aneuploidy screening perform in pregnancies achieved through IVF with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in a medical setting?

DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study was undertaken in a single tertiary care centre between January 2013 and June 2022. In total, 20,237 women had prenatal follow-up at the study centre and were included in the study. The women were divided into three groups: singleton pregnancies conceived through the transfer of a PGT-A-screened euploid embryo (n = 510); singleton pregnancies conceived through IVF without PGT-A (n = 3291); and singleton pregnancies conceived naturally (n = 16,436).

RESULTS

The conventional combined screening test for pregnancies conceived through IVF with PGT-A had specificity of 91%; sensitivity could not be calculated as there were no cases of fetal aneuploidy in this group. In 89.1% of pregnancies conceived through IVF with PGT-A with high risk for trisomy 21, 18 or 13, the result was related to advanced maternal age (>35 years at time of screening).

CONCLUSIONS

The current screening strategy for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 can generate unnecessary tests in pregnancies achieved through IVF with PGT-A. A new protocol is needed for these patients, with greater weight given to ultrasound markers.

Challenges experienced by genetic counselors while they provided counseling about mosaic embryos

Objective

To survey genetic counselors (GCs) who have counseled about mosaic embryos regarding the challenges they faced in counseling this patient population and assess their need for more resources to support their practice.

Design

Self-administered online survey.

Setting

Academic university.

Study Population

Seventy-eight GCs primarily from the United States and Canada.

Interventions

Genetic counselors completed a quantitative survey with an embedded qualitative component. Quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. An inductive thematic analysis was performed on open-text responses.

Main Outcome Measures

Genetic counselors were asked what clinical activities relating to mosaic embryos they performed. They were then asked to rate how challenging each activity was to perform using a 5-point scale; a rating of 4 or 5 was defined as highly challenging. Open-text questions enabled GCs to describe factors that they felt contributed to these challenges.

Results

The challenges reported by GCs included the uncertainty of outcomes in offspring after mosaic embryo transfer, limited guidelines available to assist clinicians with counseling about mosaic embryos, and ranking mosaic embryos by suitability for transfer. The contributing factors suggested by participants included limited outcome data, limited GC involvement in pretest counseling for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), and perceived inconsistency in counseling practices across clinics. Genetic counselors differed in their genetic testing recommendations for pregnancies conceived after mosaic embryo transfer. Amniocentesis and postnatal assessment were recommended by 85% and 49% of GCs, respectively, and 15% recommended chorionic villus sampling and noninvasive prenatal testing. Almost all (92%) reported a need for more resources, such as standardized guidelines, more outcome data, and continuing education on PGT-A and mosaicism.

Conclusions

This study describes challenges experienced by GCs while they counseled about mosaic embryos. Our findings demonstrate a need for more outcome data on mosaic embryo pregnancies and for evidence-based clinical guidelines. The differing recommendations for prenatal genetic testing among GCs in the study warrant further research into contributing factors. We strongly recommend that pretest counseling, including a discussion regarding mosaicism, is provided to all couples considering PGT-A to reduce counseling challenges and to promote patients' informed decision-making.

Role of genetic analysis of products of conception and PGT in managing early pregnancy loss

This article considers the addition of comprehensive 24-chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of products of conception (POC) to a standard evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) to help direct treatment towards expectant management versus IVF with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). The review included retrospective data from 65,333 miscarriages, a prospective evaluation of 378 couples with RPL who had CMA testing of POC and the standard workup, and data from an additional 1020 couples who were evaluated for RPL but did not undergo CMA testing of POC. Aneuploidy in POC explained the pregnancy loss in 57.7% (218/378) of cases. In contrast, the full RPL evaluation recommended by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine identified a potential cause in only 42.9% (600/1398). Combining the data from the RPL evaluation and the results of genetic testing of POC provides a probable explanation for the loss in over 90% (347/378) of women. Couples with an unexplained loss after the standard evaluation with POC aneuploidy accounted for 41% of cases; PGT-A may be considered after expectant management. Conversely, PGT-A would have a limited role in those with a euploid loss and a possible explanation after the standard workup. Categorizing a pregnancy loss as an explained versus unexplained loss after the standard evaluation combined with the results of CMA testing of POC may help identify patients who would benefit from expectant management versus PGT-A.

Update on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and outcomes of embryos with mosaic results

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is used as a frequent add-on for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose is to select a euploid embryo following chromosomal testing on embryo biopsies. The current practice includes comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) technology applied on trophectoderm (TE) biopsies. Despite its widespread use, PGT-A remains a controversial topic mainly because all of the RCTs comprised only good prognosis patients with 2 or more blastocysts available; hence the results are not generalizable to all groups of patients. Furthermore, with the introduction of the highly-sensitive platforms into clinical practice (i.e. next-generation sequencing [NGS]), a result consistent with intermediate copy number surfaced and is termed "Mosaic," consistent with a mixture of euploid and aneuploid cells within the biopsy sample. The optimal disposition and management of embryos with mosaic results is still an open question, as many 'mosaics' generated healthy live births with no identifiable congenital anomalies. The present article provides a complete and comprehensive up-to-date review on PGT-A. It discusses in detail the findings of all the published RCTs on PGT-A with CCS, comments on the subject of "mosaicism" and its current management, and describes the latest technique of non-invasive PGT-A.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: challenges in clinical practice

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) has been used widely during in vitro fertilization procedures in assisted reproductive centers throughout the world. Despite its wide use, concerns arise from the use of PGT-A technology in clinical decision-making. We address knowledge gaps in PGT-A, summarizing major challenges and current professional guidelines. First, PGT-A is a screening test and not a diagnostic test. Second, mosaicism is much higher in the blastocyst stage from PGT-A than had been recognized previously and a mosaic embryo may not accurately represent the genetic disease risk for future fetal disorders. Third, PGT-A was not validated clinically before use in patients; the best use of this technology for selected age-groups remains uncertain. Given these gaps, we believe that current professional policies relying on industry-self-regulation are insufficient. In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration may be the most appropriate agency to provide more definitive guidelines and regulations that are needed for better practice.

Every Mother and Every Fetus Matters: A Positive Pregnant Test = Multiple Offerings of Reproductive Risk Screening for personal, family, and specific obstetrical-fetal conditions

Structured OBJECTIVE: The requirement and need for a focused 'pregnant person -centered' antenatal care process with time for informed consent and shared decision making are important for optimal antenatal care. This commentary focuses on the evidenced -based screening test options and timing as part of the overall 'pregnant person-centered' preconception and antenatal care journey.

METHODS

A structured quality improvement (QI) review (Squire 2.0) was undertaken to examine the appropriate reproductive screening process in the periods of preconception and during pregnancy.

RESULTS

First, evaluated the broader antenatal care structure which, second, enabled the directed reproductive risk screening processes to be offered within an informed consent process. Four international pre-conception and antenatal evidenced-based consensus would routinely offer specific gestational age reproductive risk screening elements: totaling 21 screening elements (preconception 3; 1st trimester 9; 2nd trimester 3; 3rd trimester 4; intrapartum 1; postpartum 1).

CONCLUSION

The best evidenced-based opportunity for comprehensive and collaborative antenatal care with appropriate screening elements requires: single national access healthcare system; expert evidenced-based guideline creation; collaborative maternity care providers based for risk assessment, triage, and management; pregnant person (women) centered care model of maternity care; clearly identified evidenced-based gestational age directed screening elements; international pre-conception and antenatal guideline consensus.

Evidence-based clinical prioritization of embryos with mosaic results: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to standardize the practice of mosaic embryo transfer, based on the current available evidence.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Relevant studies published were comprehensively selected using PubMed, Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until 5 March 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting the genetic analysis and clinical outcomes of mosaic embryo transfer were included. Risk of bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the non-randomized studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were combined ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate and miscarriage rate, respectively.

RESULTS

There were no differences between low and high mosaic embryos when a cut-off of 40% was used in terms of OP/LBR and SAB. However, low mosaics with a cut-off of 50% compared to high mosaics showed a significantly higher OP/LBR in the NGS but not in the a-CGH group, and a significantly lower risk of SAB. No differences were noted between mosaic monosomies versus trisomies and single versus double mosaics for both OP/LBR and SAB. Finally, segmental mosaics showed a higher OP/LBR and a lower SAB compared to whole chromosomes, and single and double mosaics had a higher OP/LBR compared to complex mosaics.

CONCLUSIONS

A cut-off of 50% in defining low versus high mosaic embryos is preferable to a threshold of 40% when using NGS platform. No priority was established for mosaic trisomies over monosomies. Single and double mosaics must be preferred over complex mosaics and segmental mosaics must be preferred over whole chromosome mosaics. These results should be interpreted in the context of specific chromosomes involved in the mosaicism.

The "mosaic" embryo: misconceptions and misinterpretations in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) remains one of the most controversial topics in reproductive medicine. With more than 40% of in vitro fertilization cycles in the United States reportedly involving PGT, both those in favor of and those opposed to PGT-A have significant interest in the efficacy of PGT-A. Ongoing issues include what patient population, if any, benefits from PGT-A, the true frequency of chromosomal mosaicism, whether embryonic aneuploidies self-correct, and how practitioners manage embryos designated as "mosaic." This review addresses several misconceptions and misinterpretations of data surrounding the genetic analysis and prediction of mosaicism in the preimplantation embryo.