Beware of the 'implantation rate'! Why the outcome parameter 'implantation rate' should be abandoned from infertility research

Endometrial scratch in women undergoing first-time IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The endometrial scratch procedure is an IVF 'add-on' sometimes provided prior to the first IVF cycle. A 2019 systematic review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show whether endometrial scratch has a significant effect on pregnancy outcomes (including live birth rate, LBR) when undertaken prior to the first IVF cycle. Further evidence was published following this review, including the Endometrial Scratch Trial (ISRCTN23800982). The objective of the current review was to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure in women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Databases searched include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible randomized controlled trials included women undergoing IVF for the first time that reported the effectiveness and/or safety of the endometrial scratch procedure; 12 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant effect of the endometrial scratch on LBR (10 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.79) or other pregnancy outcomes. This review confirms that there is a lack of evidence that endometrial scratch improves pregnancy outcomes, including LBR, for women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Clinicians are recommended not to perform this procedure in individuals undergoing their first cycle of IVF.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials.

SETTING

Sixteen UK fertility units.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m² and previous trauma to the endometrium.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22).

LIMITATIONS

A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Higher blastocyst implantation in frozen versus fresh embryo transfers in good prognosis patients

BACKGROUND

There is emerging evidence that frozen embryo transfers provide a more favorable environment for implantation as compared to fresh embryo transfers. Our objective was to determine if there is a clinical benefit to frozen versus fresh blastocyst transfers in good prognosis patients.

METHODS

Subjects undergoing their first or second IVF/ICSI cycle <38 years of age in an OCP pretreated GnRH antagonist stimulation protocol with supernumerary embryos available for blastocyst cryopreservation were eligible for analysis. Primary transfer was exclusively blastocyst transfer. Exclusion criteria consisted of rescue ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing, donor oocytes, and surrogacy. The cohort was divided into two groups based on whether they underwent a fresh vs. frozen primary transfer. The implantation rates were compared using mixed-effects logistic regression. The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were compared using logistic regression adjusted for number of oocytes retrieved and number of embryos transferred. All models included age, reason for treatment, and number of prior births as covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 615 subjects were included in the study. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to age, BMI, baseline ovarian reserve testing, total gonadotropin dosage, and duration of stimulation. The implantation rate was higher in the frozen-embryo group as compared to the fresh-embryo group (59% and 48% respectively; OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.44). There was a trend towards higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in the frozen-embryo group. These differences persisted in the adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among good prognosis patients undergoing IVF, frozen embryo transfer was associated with improved implantation rates. Consideration should be given to primary frozen blastocyst transfer in this population.

The Effect of Post warming Culture Period Between Thawing and Transfer of Cryopreserved Embryos on Reproductive Outcomes After In Vitro Fertilization (IVF): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of post warming culture period between thawing and transfer of cryopreserved embryos on reproductive outcomes after in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods

An extensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from January 2000 to August 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was performed in this manuscript. The trials represented patients with embryo transfers of at least one previously cryopreserved good quality embryo. Main outcome measures of the study included clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate.

Results

A total of 5338 trial/abstracts were identified through a literature search. Totally, five studies were included in the systematic review, and three in the final meta-analysis. The studies included 1717 embryo transfers, 605 after short culture, and 1112 after long culture. The clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was the most consistent outcome reported. The CPR was slightly better after short time culture with a RR of 1.09 (0.95-1.26, 95%CI) but this difference was not statistically significant. The great heterogenicity in the results reported in the included studies made it impossible to compare all planned outcomes.

Conclusion

There are no differences in reproductive outcomes if cryopreserved embryos are transferred after overnight culture or after two hours of culture following thawing. Due to small number and the poor quality of trials reported on this topic, the results of this review should be treated with caution.

IVF, from the past to the future: the inheritance of the Capri Workshop Group

Today IVF use is booming all over the world and has even started to play a role in demographic analyses. Prognosis-adjusted estimates suggest that up to two-thirds of couples could achieve a live birth. However, the scenario is less exciting in reality. Discontinuation during the cycles is common, and age and ovarian response continue to be crucial in modulating this rate of success. A growing interest is now given to the risk of abuses and in particular to overtreatment and to prescriptions of useless, if not harmful, expensive additional treatments ('add-ons'). A more rational, evidence-based and wise approach is needed. From a scientific perspective, several obscure aspects remain and warrant future investigations. Of particular interest are the neglected role of sperm selection, the potential adult implications of early embryo life in vitro and the issue of sustainability.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

In in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is based on morphological criteria. However, many women do not achieve a pregnancy even after 'good quality' embryo transfer. One of the presumed causes is that such morphologically normal embryos have an abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies). Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), was therefore developed as an alternative method to select embryos for transfer in IVF. In PGT-A, the polar body or one or a few cells of the embryo are obtained by biopsy and tested. Only polar bodies and embryos that show a normal number of chromosomes are transferred. The first generation of PGT-A, using cleavage-stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for the genetic analysis, was demonstrated to be ineffective in improving live birth rates. Since then, new PGT-A methodologies have been developed that perform the biopsy procedure at other stages of development and use different methods for genetic analysis. Whether or not PGT-A improves IVF outcomes and is beneficial to patients has remained controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PGT-A in women undergoing an IVF treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2019 and checked the references of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in participants undergoing IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR). Secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) after the first embryo transfer, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, proportion of women reaching an embryo transfer, and mean number of embryos per transfer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 2794 women. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of publication bias. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses Polar body biopsy One trial used polar body biopsy with array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH). It is uncertain whether the addition of PGT-A by polar body biopsy increases the cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.66, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed cLBR of 24% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 17% and 34%. It is uncertain whether the LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A by polar body biopsy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.79, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). PGT-A with polar body biopsy may reduce miscarriage rate (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate were available. The effect of PGT-A by polar body biopsy on improving clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). Blastocyst stage biopsy One trial used blastocyst stage biopsy with next-generation sequencing. It is uncertain whether IVF with the addition of PGT-A by blastocyst stage biopsy increases cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A, since no data were available. It is uncertain if LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy reduces miscarriage rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate or clinical pregnancy rate were available. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis Eleven trials were included in this comparison. It is uncertain whether IVF with addition of PGT-A increases cLBR (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 1 RCT, N = 408, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average cLBR of 29% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 12% and 29%. PGT-A performed with FISH probably reduces live births after the first transfer compared to the control group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91, 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 54%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average LBR per first transfer of 31% in the control group, the chance of live birth after the first embryo transfer with PGT-A is between 16% and 29%. There is probably little or no difference in miscarriage rate between PGT-A and the control group (OR 1.03, 95%, CI 0.75 to 1.41; 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 16%; moderate-quality evidence). The addition of PGT-A may reduce ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, N = 1121, I² = 60%, low-quality evidence) and probably reduces clinical pregnancies (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, 5 RCTs, N = 1131; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient good-quality evidence of a difference in cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate after the first embryo transfer, or miscarriage rate between IVF with and IVF without PGT-A as currently performed. No data were available on ongoing pregnancy rates. The effect of PGT-A on clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain. Women need to be aware that it is uncertain whether PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses is an effective addition to IVF, especially in view of the invasiveness and costs involved in PGT-A. PGT-A using FISH for the genetic analysis is probably harmful. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support PGT-A in routine clinical practice.

Complexities and potential pitfalls of clinical study design and data analysis in assisted reproduction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the current review is to describe the common pitfalls in design and statistical analysis of reproductive medicine studies. It serves to guide both authors and reviewers toward reducing the incidence of spurious statistical results and erroneous conclusions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The large amount of data gathered in IVF cycles leads to problems with multiplicity, multicollinearity, and over fitting of regression models. Furthermore, the use of the word 'trend' to describe nonsignificant results has increased in recent years. Finally, methods to accurately account for female age in infertility research models are becoming more common and necessary.

SUMMARY

The pitfalls of study design and analysis reviewed provide a framework for authors and reviewers to approach clinical research in the field of reproductive medicine. By providing a more rigorous approach to study design and analysis, the literature in reproductive medicine will have more reliable conclusions that can stand the test of time.

Is genetic fatherhood within reach for all azoospermic Klinefelter men?

Background

Multidisciplinary management of Klinefelter cases is now considered good clinical practice in order to ensure optimal quality of life. Reproductive performance of Klinefelter men is an important issue however literature in this domain is limited and prone to bias.

Study design

This was a retrospective longitudinal cohort study performed at a tertiary referral University Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics. One hundred thirty-eight non-mosaic azoospermic Klinefelter patients undergoing their first testicular biopsy (TESE) between 1994 and 2013, followed by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with fresh or frozen-thawed testicular sperm in the female partner, were followed-up longitudinally. The main outcome measure was cumulative live birth rate per Klinefelter patient embarking on TESE-ICSI.

Findings

In forty-eight men (48/138) sperm were successfully retrieved at the first TESE (34.8%). The mean age of the patients was 32.4 years. Younger age at first TESE was associated with a higher sperm retrieval rate (p<0.001). Overall 39 couples underwent 62 ICSI cycles and 13 frozen embryo transfer cycles resulting in in 20 pregnancies and 14 live birth deliveries (16 children). The mean age of the female partner was 28.1 years. The crude cumulative delivery rate after four ICSI cycles was 35.9%. Per intention-to-treat however, only 10.1% (14/138) of the Klinefelter men starting treatment succeeded in having their biologically own child(ren).

Conclusion

Non-mosaic Klinefelter patients with azoospermia seeking treatment by TESE-ICSI should be counseled that by intention-to-treat the chance of retrieving sperm is fair, however only a minority will eventually father genetically own children.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Embryo stage of development is not decisive for reproductive outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles

Objective

To evaluate if the outcomes of IVF/ICSI in frozen-thawed embryo transfer and fresh embryo transfer cycles differ in relation to cleavage and blastocyst stages.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study to compare IVF/ICSI outcomes between fresh embryo transfer and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, according to the stage of embryo development. Analysis was carried out on 443 consecutive embryo transfer cycles performed between January 1st and December 31st, 2014. Women aged up to 38 and submitted to embryo transfer cycles with fresh (n = 309) or frozen-thawed (n = 134) embryos at a private center for assistance in human reproduction were considered for analysis. Results in each group were stratified according to the stage of embryo development: cleavage stage and blastocyst stage. Main outcome measures were implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate and live birth rate per cycle.

Results

In the fresh embryo transfer group, for cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage, respectively, implantation rates were 22% and 47% (p = 0.0005); clinical pregnancy rates were 34% and 64% (p = 0.0057); the ongoing pregnancy rates were 30% and 61% (p = 0.0046) and live birth rates were 28% and 55% (p = 0.0148). There were no significant differences in the rates between cleavage and blastocyst stages in the frozen-thawed group, neither between fresh and frozen-thawed cleavage embryo transfers nor between fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers.

Conclusion

Our results confirm that blastocyst transfer is better than cleavage stage in fresh embryo transfer cycles. In frozen-thawed cycles, cleavage or blastocyst stages seem to offer similar reproductive outcomes.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

No common denominator: a review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs

STUDY QUESTION

Which outcome measures are reported in RCTs for IVF?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Many combinations of numerator and denominator are in use, and are often employed in a manner that compromises the validity of the study.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The choice of numerator and denominator governs the meaning, relevance and statistical integrity of a study's results. RCTs only provide reliable evidence when outcomes are assessed in the cohort of randomised participants, rather than in the subgroup of patients who completed treatment.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Review of outcome measures reported in 142 IVF RCTs published in 2013 or 2014.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register. English-language publications of RCTs reporting clinical or preclinical outcomes in peer-reviewed journals in the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014 were eligible. Reported numerators and denominators were extracted. Where they were reported, we checked to see if live birth rates were calculated correctly using the entire randomised cohort or a later denominator.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Over 800 combinations of numerator and denominator were identified (613 in no more than one study). No single outcome measure appeared in the majority of trials. Only 22 (43%) studies reporting live birth presented a calculation including all randomised participants or only excluding protocol violators. A variety of definitions were used for key clinical numerators: for example, a consensus regarding what should constitute an ongoing pregnancy does not appear to exist at present.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Several of the included articles may have been secondary publications. Our categorisation scheme was essentially arbitrary, so the frequencies we present should be interpreted with this in mind. The analysis of live birth denominators was post hoc.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

There is massive diversity in numerator and denominator selection in IVF trials due to its multistage nature, and this causes methodological frailty in the evidence base. The twin spectres of outcome reporting bias and analysis of non-randomised comparisons do not appear to be widely recognised. Initiatives to standardise outcome reporting, such as requiring all effectiveness studies to report live birth or cumulative live birth, are welcome. However, there is a need to recognise that early outcomes of treatment, such as stimulation response or embryo quality, may be appropriate choices of primary outcome for early phase studies.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

J.W. is funded by a Doctoral Research Fellowship from the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. J.W. also declares that publishing research is beneficial to his career. J.W. and A.V. are statistical editors, and M.S. is Information Specialist, for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, although the views expressed here are not necessarily those of the group. D.R.B. is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

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.