Embryo Biopsy for Aneuploidy Detection in the General Infertility Population

Daniel J. Kaser; Elizabeth S. Ginsburg

doi:10.1055/s-0033-1363551

Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, Table of Contents

Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32(02): 100-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363551

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Embryo Biopsy for Aneuploidy Detection in the General Infertility Population

Daniel J. Kaser

¹Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

,

Elizabeth S. Ginsburg

¹Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Since report of the first live birth following preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in 1995, the procedure and available technologies for aneuploidy detection have rapidly evolved. Through these efforts, the biology of meiotic and mitotic segregation errors has been partially elucidated. A process that began with polar body biopsy and four-color fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect copy number in a limited number of chromosomes is now hardly recognizable: current molecular methods permit high-density screening of the entire human genome for copy number variants, structural rearrangements, microdeletions, and polyploids to a resolution of 35 kilobases in less than 48 hours. Indeed, with the advent of real-time quantitative analyses of ploidy status that allow same-day trophectoderm biopsy with fresh transfer of a euploid blastocyst, the future is bright for PGS. Questions remain about how best to safely offer this technology to patients, and which patients, if any, will benefit from routine biopsy. Herein, we will review the limited available evidence for application of PGS in the general infertility population as an adjunct method to optimize live birth rates.

Keywords

aneuploidy - comprehensive chromosome screening - fluorescence in situ hybridization - preimplantation genetic screening - trophectoderm biopsy

Full Text

References

References
1 Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M , et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (7) 1923-1927
2 Brezina PR, Elias RT, Schattman G, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing: aAvailable and emerging technologies. In: Racowsky C, Ginsburg ES, , eds. In Vitro Fertilization. New York: Springer; 2012: 115-143
3 Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J , et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 (1) 9-17
4 Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E , et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (12) 2849-2858
5 Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L , et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (5) 1400-1407
6 Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in patients with unexplained recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 83 (2) 393-397 , quiz 525–526
7 Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T , et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7 (1) 91-97
8 Fragouli E, Katz-Jaffe M, Alfarawati S , et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening of polar bodies and blastocysts from couples experiencing repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (3) 875-887
9 Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munné S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 1999; 72 (5) 837-844
10 Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (4) 1217-1222
11 Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM , et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (1) 100 , e1
12 Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P , et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (12) 2818-2825
13 Meyer LR, Klipstein S, Hazlett WD, Nasta T, Mangan P, Karande VC. A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the “good prognosis” patient. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (5) 1731-1738
14 Jansen RPS, Bowman MC, de Boer KA, Leigh DA, Lieberman DB, McArthur SJ. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (7) 1476-1478
15 Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (4) 454-466
16 ACOG Committee Opinion No. 430: preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (3) 766-767
17 Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (5, Suppl): S136-S143
18 Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M , et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (4) 821-823
19 Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, Levy B, Scott Jr RT. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2017-2021
20 Scott Jr RT, Ferry K, Su J, Tao X, Scott K, Treff NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 870-875
21 Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott Jr RT. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 819-824
22 Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Four-hour quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based comprehensive chromosome screening and accumulating evidence of accuracy, safety, predictive value, and clinical efficacy. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (4) 1049-1053
23 Forman EJ, Hong KH, Treff NR, Scott RT. Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving toward single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30 (3) 236-242
24 Tsuchiya KD. Fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Lab Med 2011; 31 (4) 525-542 , vii–viii
25 Treff NR, Levy B, Su J, Northrop LE, Tao X, Scott Jr RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Mol Hum Reprod 2010; 16 (8) 583-589
26 Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative C(T) method. Nat Protoc 2008; 3 (6) 1101-1108
27 Capalbo A, Bono S, Spizzichino L , et al. Sequential comprehensive chromosome analysis on polar bodies, blastomeres and trophoblast: insights into female meiotic errors and chromosomal segregation in the preimplantation window of embryo development. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (2) 509-518
28 Baart EB, Martini E, van den Berg I , et al. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (1) 223-233
29 Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD , et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (2) 480-490
30 Munné S, Velilla E, Colls P , et al. Self-correction of chromosomally abnormal embryos in culture and implications for stem cell production. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (5) 1328-1334
31 Fragouli E, Lenzi M, Ross R, Katz-Jaffe M, Schoolcraft WB, Wells D. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (11) 2596-2608
32 Scott Jr RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (3) 624-630
33 Forman EJ, Kerry KM, Gueye NA , et al. Trophectoderm biopsy for single-gene disorder preimplantation genetic diagnosis is significantly more reliable than day 3 blastomere biopsy. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3) S222