Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2018 Jan;61(1):95-101. 10.5468/ogs.2018.61.1.95.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and pre-implantation genetic screening: two years experience at a single center

• Won SY
• Kim H
• Lee WS
• Kim JW
• Shim SH

• KMID: 2420157
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2018.61.1.95

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
Indications for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)/preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) cycles and clinical outcomes were evaluated at CHA Gangnam Medical Center.
METHODS
This is retrospective cohort study. All patients (n=336) who went through in vitro fertilization (IVF)-PGD/PGS cycles (n=486) between January 2014 and December 2015 were included in Fertility Center of CHA Gangnam Medical Center. Patients underwent IVF-PGD/PGS with 24-chromosome screening. Patients with euploid embryos had transfer of one or 2 embryos in a fresh cycle with any subsequent frozen embryo transfer (ET) cycle. Compared implantation, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and early abortion rates were the main outcome measures.
RESULTS
The most common indication for PGD/PGS was recurrent spontaneous abortion (n=160). The chromosome rearrangement cases (n=116) included 24 Robertsonian translocations, 60 reciprocal translocations, 3 inversions, 2 deletions, 4 additions, and 23 mosaicisms. PGS cases rather than the PGD cases showed higher implantation rates (26.4% vs. 20.3%), ongoing pregnancy rates (19.5% vs. 16.4%), and clinical pregnancy rates (28.6% vs. 23.3%). Implantation rates (30.3% vs. 23.7%), clinical pregnancy rates (39.2% vs. 25.2%), and ongoing pregnancy rates (25.7% vs. 17.5%) were significant higher in the blastocyst evaluation group than cleavage stage evaluation group.
CONCLUSION
This was the largest study of PGD/PGS for 2 years at a single center in Korea. The pregnancy outcomes of PGD cases are slightly lower than PGS cases. It was confirmed again that success rate of PGD/PGS is higher if biopsy was done at blastocyst than cleavage stage.

Keyword

In vitro fertilization; Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

MeSH Terms

Abortion, Induced
Abortion, Spontaneous
Biopsy
Blastocyst
Cohort Studies
Diagnosis*
Embryo Transfer
Embryonic Structures
Female
Fertility
Fertilization in Vitro
Genetic Testing*
Humans
Korea
Mass Screening
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
Pregnancy Rate
Preimplantation Diagnosis
Prostaglandins D
Retrospective Studies
Prostaglandins D

Reference

1. Hassold T, Abruzzo M, Adkins K, Griffin D, Merrill M, Millie E, et al. Human aneuploidy: incidence, origin, and etiology. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1996; 28:167–175.

2. Kang HJ, Melnick AP, Stewart JD, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits? Fertil Steril. 2016; 106:597–602.

3. Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14:628–634.

4. Demko ZP, Simon AL, McCoy RC, Petrov DA, Rabinowitz M. Effects of maternal age on euploidy rates in a large cohort of embryos analyzed with 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphism-based preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105:1307–1313.

5. Palini S, De Stefani S, Primiterra M, Galluzzi L. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and screening: now and the future. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015; 31:755–759.

6. Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011–2012. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106:75–79.

7. Tur-Kaspa I, Jeelani R. Clinical guidelines for IVF with PGD for HLA matching. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 30:115–119.

8. Bisignano A, Wells D, Harton G, Munné S. PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes: advantages and disadvantages of competing platforms. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23:677–685.

9. Werner MD, Scott RT Jr, Treff NR. 24-chromosome PCR for aneuploidy screening. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 27:201–205.

10. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 30:281–289.

11. Handyside AH. 24-chromosome copy number analysis: a comparison of available technologies. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100:595–602.

12. Scott RT Jr, 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; 100:624–630.

13. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; CD002118.