Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-kgr8m Total loading time: 0.414 Render date: 2021-06-24T19:53:05.971Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Transition from blastomere to trophectoderm biopsy: comparing two preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2018

Lluc Coll
Affiliation:
Gran Via Carles III, 71–75. 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Mònica Parriego
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Montserrat Boada
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Marta Devesa
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Gemma Arroyo
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Ignacio Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Bonaventura Coroleu
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Francesca Vidal
Affiliation:
Unitat de Biologia Cellular, Facultat de Biociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.
Anna Veiga
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Service, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus – Dexeus Women's Health. Gran Via Carles III, 71–75, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. Stem Cell Bank. Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona. Gran Via de l'Hospitalet 199, 08908, Barcelona, Spain.
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Summary

Shortly after the implementation of comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) techniques for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), the discussion about the transition from day 3 to blastocyst stage biopsy was initiated. Trophectoderm biopsy with CCS is meant to overcome the limitations of cleavage-stage biopsy and single-cell analysis. The aim of this study was to assess the results obtained in our PGT-A programme after the implementation of this new strategy. Comparisons between the results obtained in 179 PGT-A cycles with day 3 biopsy (D+3) and fresh embryo transfer, and 204 cycles with trophectoderm biopsy and deferred (frozen–thawed) embryo transfer were established. Fewer embryos were biopsied and a higher euploidy rate was observed in the trophectoderm biopsy group. No differences in implantation (50.3% vs. 61.4%) and clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (56.1% vs. 65.3%) were found. Although the mean number of euploid embryos per cycle did not differ between groups (1.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.7 ± 1.8), the final number of euploid blastocysts available for transfer per cycle was significantly higher in the trophectoderm biopsy group (1.1 ± 1.3 vs. 1.7 ± 1.8). This factor led to an increased cumulative live birth rate in this last group (34.1% vs. 44.6%). Although both strategies can offer good results, trophectoderm biopsy offers a more robust diagnosis and the intervention is less harmful for the embryos so more euploid blastocysts are finally available for transfer and/or vitrification.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Introduction

In the past decade preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) has undergone two significant changes: one regarding the technology used for the analysis and the other concerning timing of biopsy.

As the early 1990s, when PGT-A was first described (Munné et al., Reference Munné, Lee, Rosenwaks, Grifo and Cohen1993), the technique used for analysis was fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Its main limitation was the impossibility to screen all chromosomes. This fact, along with randomized clinical trials pointing to PGT-A as detrimental (Mastenbroek et al., Reference Mastenbroek, Twisk, van Echten-Arends, Sikkema-Raddatz, Korevaar, Verhoeve, Vogel, Arts, de Vries, Bossuyt, Buys, Heineman, Repping and van der Veen2007, Reference Mastenbroek, Twisk, van der Veen and Repping2011) opened the debate. The emergence of comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) techniques optimized for single-cell analysis and clinical use (Wells et al., Reference Wells, Alfarawati and Fragouli2008; Treff & Scott, Reference Treff and Scott2012; Handyside, Reference Handyside2013) set a new era for PGT-A.

Shortly after the transition from FISH to CCS, the transition from blastomere to trophectoderm biopsy arose. As early as 1990, the usefulness of trophectoderm cells for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in overcoming the limitations of single-cell analysis was suggested (Dokras et al., Reference Dokras, Sargent, Ross, Gardner and Barlow1990). However, not until 2004 was trophectoderm biopsy strategy implemented and routinely performed at an in vitro fertilization (IVF) centre (de Boer et al., Reference de Boer, Catt, Jansen, Leigh and McArthur2004). Improvements in culture medium and conditions, the use of laser technology for embryo biopsy (Veiga et al., Reference Veiga, Sandalinas, Benkhalifa, Boada, Carrera, Santaló, Barri and Ménézo1997; Boada et al., Reference Boada, Carrera, De La Iglesia, Sandalinas, Barri and Veiga1998), and the rise of vitrification as a new cryopreservation tool (Kuwayama et al., Reference Kuwayama, Vajta, Kato and Leibo2005) made trophectoderm biopsy a realistic and efficient option for clinical practice. More recently, time-lapse monitoring has also contributed to biopsy at the blastocyst stage in terms of undisturbed culture conditions and assessing the best moment to perform the biopsy (Capalbo et al., Reference Capalbo, Romanelli, Cimadomo, Girardi, Stoppa, Dovere, Dell'Edera, Ubaldi and Rienzi2016).

As presented above, the limitations of single-cell analysis can be overcome by trophectoderm biopsy. In this latter approach, in which 3–8 cells are biopsied, diagnosis is more robust and its failure more unlikely (Forman et al., Reference Forman, Hong, Treff and Scott2012). Moreover, trophectoderm biopsy has also been reported to be less harmful to the embryo (Scott et al., Reference Scott, Upham, Forman, Zhao and Treff2013). In terms of embryo mosaicism, blastocyst biopsy allows its detection at certain levels (from 20%) depending on the CCS technique used (Mamas et al., Reference Mamas, Gordon, Brown, Harper and SenGupta2012; PGDIS, 2016).

Fresh euploid blastocyst transfer strategy or frozen–thawed euploid blastocyst transfer policies can be followed (Coates et al., Reference Coates, Kung, Mounts, Hesla, Bankowski, Barbieri, Ata, Cohen and Munné2017).

Published results on clinical outcomes obtained with PGT-A with trophectoderm biopsy are promising (Dahdouh et al., Reference Dahdouh, Balayla and García-Velasco2015) and are encouraging many groups to change their D+3 biopsy programmes to blastocyst biopsy.

There are very few publications that compare D+3 and trophectoderm biopsy, analysing the changes experienced in a PGT-A programme by changing the biopsy timing (Harton et al., Reference Harton, Munné, Surrey, Grifo, Kaplan, McCulloh, Griffin and Wells2013; Adler et al., Reference Adler, Lee, McCulloh, Ampeloquio, Clarke-Williams, Wertz and Grifo2014).

The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained in our PGT-A programme by two different approaches: single-cell D+3 biopsy and fresh embryo transfer on day 5 and trophectoderm biopsy and deferred (frozen–thawed) embryo transfer.

Materials and Methods

In total, 383 PGT-A cycles with their own gametes between January 2014 and February 2016 were included and analysed retrospectively.

Here, 172 patients undergoing 179 cycles were included in the D+3 biopsy group and 193 patients undergoing 204 cycles were included in the trophectoderm biopsy group. Patients had normal karyotypes and underwent a PGT-A cycle for one of the following indications: advanced maternal age (>37 years), severe male factor with altered sperm FISH analysis, repeated implantation failure (≥3 transfers without implantation or ≥5 optimal quality transferred embryos failing to implant), recurrent miscarriages (≥3), and previous pregnancies affected of chromosomopathies.

Ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval

Patients underwent pharmacological treatment of ovulation induction by GnRH agonists or antagonists. Both ovarian stimulation protocols and monitoring of follicular growth and hormonal oestradiol blood levels followed the standards applied routinely in our centre as previously described (Barri et al., Reference Barri, Martinez, Coroleu and Tur2002). Oocyte retrieval was performed under transvaginal ultrasound guidance 36 h after hCG administration.

Gamete and embryo manipulation, PGT-A procedures and embryo transfer

Gametes and embryos were cultured in LifeGlobal® medium following the manufacturer's instructions. Mature oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) 40 h after hCG administration and then cultured in a time-lapse incubator (Embryoscope®).

All PGT-A cycles were performed during a relatively short interval of time (January 2014 to February 2016). Three periods can be identified. During the first period, PGT-A was routinely performed with single-cell biopsy on D+3 and fresh euploid embryo transfer on day 5. After proper training of the embryologists, the optimization of laboratory organization, and the successful performance of some pilot cases, the decision to embrace a PGT-A strategy with trophectoderm biopsy and deferred embryo transfer was made. During the second period, both strategies coexisted. Finally, there was a third period when the transition was complete and all the cases were performed with blastocyst biopsy and deferred euploid embryo transfer.

Cleavage-stage biopsy (Group 1)

Embryos presenting ≥5 cells and <30% fragmentation at 66 ± 2 h post-ICSI were considered suitable for biopsy. Embryos with <5 cells and/or >30% fragmentation were discarded. Zona opening was performed by laser thermolysis (Boada et al., Reference Boada, Carrera, De La Iglesia, Sandalinas, Barri and Veiga1998) and the biopsy was carried out by aspiration of a single blastomere. Whole genome amplification, processing and analysis were performed using the kits, software, and protocols for array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis provided by the manufacturer (SurePlex® DNA Amplification System, 24Sure® Microarray Pack, Bluefuse®, Illumina®). One or two euploid embryos were replaced under ultrasound control (Coroleu et al., Reference Coroleu, Barri, Carreras, Belil, Buxaderas, Veiga and Balasch2006) on day 5. Remaining euploid blastocysts were vitrified using the kits and protocols provided by the manufacturer (Kitazato®). Luteal phase support was achieved with vaginal progesterone (200 mg every 8 h) until the determination of beta-hCG in plasma (15 days after oocyte retrieval). For positive results, the support treatment continued until ultrasound detection of fetal heartbeat on the sixth week of pregnancy.

Trophectoderm biopsy (Group 2)

Zona opening was performed on D+3 embryos with the same criteria and methodology described for Group 1. These embryos were left in culture and those developing to the blastocyst stage between day 5 and day 7 were biopsied using laser technology as previously described (Veiga et al., Reference Veiga, Sandalinas, Benkhalifa, Boada, Carrera, Santaló, Barri and Ménézo1997). Only blastocysts with a well defined inner cell mass and with a hatching trophectoderm with multiple cells were considered eligible for biopsy. Three to eight trophectoderm cells were biopsied. Blastocysts were vitrified immediately after the biopsy (Kitazato®). Analysis by aCGH was performed as in Group 1. One or two euploid blastocysts were replaced in a deferred cycle. Endometrial preparation and laboratory procedures for deferred embryo transfer were performed as previously reported (Parriego et al., Reference Parriego, Solé, Aurell, Barri and Veiga2007). Embryo transfer and follow up did not differ from the methodology described for Group 1.

Statistical analysis

The Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney non-parametric test was used to compare continuous variables among the groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test or by comparison of their confidence interval at 95% (95% CI).

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (Copyright © 2002–2012; SAS Institute Inc. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). P-values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance as well as non-overlapping 95% CI.

Results

In total, 383 PGT-A cycles were included: 179 cycles with cleavage-stage biopsy (Group 1) and 204 cycles with trophectoderm biopsy (Group 2). The indications for PGT-A in both groups were comparable: 48.6% vs. 56.9% for advanced maternal age, 17.3% vs. 17.1% for male factor, 16.2% vs. 14.7% for repeated implantation failure, 16.2% vs. 10.3% for recurrent miscarriages, and 1.7% vs. 1.0% for previous affected pregnancies (P = 0.496).

Patients from Groups 1 and 2 were comparable in terms of age (38.7 ± 3.6 vs. 38.3 ± 4.0). The mean number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes recovered (13.1 ± 4.5 vs. 13.4 ± 5.4), fertilized oocytes (9.5 ± 3.6 vs. 9.7 ± 4.5), and developing D3 embryos (8.3 ± 3.4 vs. 9.0 ± 4.6) were also similar (Table 1). All patients in Group 1 achieved embryo biopsy while eight patients from Group 2 (3.9%) did not, as no embryo developed to the blastocyst stage. The indication for all these eight patients was advanced maternal age.

Table 1 Cycles characteristics

a SD: Standard deviation.

As shown in Table 2, a mean of 8.3 ± 3.4 embryos was analysed per cycle in Group 1 while 4.7 ± 3.1 were analysed in Group 2, this comparison being statistically different. A lower percentage of biopsied embryos were successfully diagnosed in Group 1 (89.4% vs. 96.1%) due to either amplification failure or low confidence profiles. The euploidy rate observed in Group 1 was lower when compared with Group 2 (20.1% vs. 38.3%), and complex aneuploidies (involving ≥3 chromosomes) were more frequent at the cleavage stage (50.1% vs. 14.0%). In total, 37 blastocysts (4%) were diagnosed as euploid–aneuploid mosaic in Group 2. The mean number of euploid embryos per cycle was the same between groups (1.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.7 ± 1.8). However, given that not all cleavage-stage embryos with a euploidy diagnosis reached the blastocyst stage, fewer blastocysts were finally available per cycle (transferred and/or frozen) in Group 1 (1.1 ± 1.3 vs. 1.7 ± 1.8) (Table 2).

Table 2 PGT-A results

a SD: Standard deviation.

b 95% Confidence interval.

There were fewer cycles to transfer in Group 1 (59.8% vs. 70.6%) and more embryos were replaced per transfer in this group (1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.4). From 180 blastocysts warmed for deferred transfer in Group 2, 97.8% survived (re-expanding or re-expanded blastocysts 2 h post-warming) and could be transferred. After first euploid blastocyst transfer clinical pregnancy rate per cycle was significantly lower in Group 1 (33.5% vs. 46.1%), but no differences in clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (56.1% vs. 65.3%) and implantation rate (50.3% vs. 61.4%) were detected between groups. Multiple pregnancy (28.3% vs. 14.9%), miscarriage (10% vs. 18.1%), and ectopic pregnancy rate (1.7% vs. 3.2%) showed no significant differences. Live birth rate per cycle (29.6% vs. 35.3%) and per transfer (49.5% vs. 50.0%) were also similar between both groups (Table 3).

Table 3 Clinical outcomesFootnote a

a Clinical outcomes for first euploid embryo transfers of each cycle are presented. Only the variable ‘cycles with at least one live birth after successive transfers’ is related to the total number of transfers in the included cycles.

b Cycles with at least one transfer.

c SD: Standard deviation.

d 95% Confidence interval.

However, when taking into account successive transfers, cumulative delivery rate per initiated cycle with at least one live birth was ultimately higher in Group 2 (34.1% vs. 44.6%) (Table 3).

Discussion

The transition from cleavage-stage to blastocyst-stage biopsy is being embraced by many IVF laboratories, given its promising results. However, for laboratories with a well established cleavage-stage biopsy protocol and good results, this PGT-A strategy may be difficult to abandon. In our centre, with good results in D+3 biopsy, the aim was to assess how the strategy change could modify our PGT-A results in order to evaluate the newly implemented approach.

As shown by our results, while all cycles in Group 1 had a biopsy performed, there were eight cycles in Group 2 (3.9%) with no embryos developing to the blastocyst stage. The possibility of not having blastocysts available for biopsy has to be communicated to patients undergoing PGT-A with trophectoderm biopsy. As previously reported, the risk of not having blastocysts available increases with maternal age (Franasiak et al., Reference Franasiak, Forman, Hong, Werner, Upham, Treff and Scott2014) as confirmed by our results (mean maternal age in our subgroup with no biopsy: 40.6 ± 2.8).

The number of biopsied embryos in Group 1 was double the number of those in Group 2. It has been demonstrated that embryo selection takes place during development to the blastocyst stage (Alikani et al., Reference Alikani, Calderon, Tomkin, Garrisi, Kokot and Cohen2000). Blastocyst formation rates reported in IVF programmes are around 50% (Van Landuyt et al., Reference Van Landuyt, De Vos, Joris, Verheyen, Devroey and Van Steirteghem2005; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Zhang, Salem, Liu, Kuang, Salem and Liu2014; Swain et al., Reference Swain, Carrell, Cobo, Meseguer, Rubio and Smith2016). Consequently, we can expect the number of biopsied blastocysts on D+5/6/7 to be around half of those biopsied on D+3.

As previously reported (Forman et al., Reference Forman, Hong, Treff and Scott2012), we observed an important increase in successfully diagnosed embryos in Group 2 (89.4% vs. 96.9%). The biopsy of multiple cells leads to a decrease in amplification failures. As fewer embryos remain undiagnosed, the need to potentially perform an additional biopsy becomes residual when biopsying at the blastocyst stage, thus reducing the risks associated with the extra manipulation.

Culture to the blastocyst stage has been reported to select preferably euploid embryos (Harton et al., Reference Harton, Munné, Surrey, Grifo, Kaplan, McCulloh, Griffin and Wells2013; Adler et al., Reference Adler, Lee, McCulloh, Ampeloquio, Clarke-Williams, Wertz and Grifo2014). In our results, the euploidy rate is clearly lower in Group 1. Furthermore, our results regarding the incidence of complex aneuploidies show that, in most cases, highly abnormal embryos are not able to develop to the blastocyst stage. However, the selection of euploid embryos by culture to blastocyst is not complete as confirmed by the euploidy rate in Group 2 (38.3%). Only the combination of blastocyst culture and PGT-A allows the selection of euploid blastocysts (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Zhang, Salem, Liu, Kuang, Salem and Liu2014).

Regarding mosaicism, its incidence decreases from cleavage to blastocyst stage (Bielanska et al., Reference Bielanska, Jin, Bernier, Tan and Ao2005; Northrop et al., Reference Northrop, Treff, Levy and Scott2010; Fragouli et al., Reference Fragouli, Alfarawati, Daphnis, Goodall, Mania, Griffiths, Gordon and Wells2011; Capalbo et al., Reference Capalbo, Wright, Elliott, Ubaldi, Rienzi and Nagy2013; Mertzanidou et al., Reference Mertzanidou, Wilton, Cheng, Spits, Vanneste, Moreau, Vermeesch and Sermon2013), although it is still remarkable in this latter stage. Its high presence in cleavage-stage embryos and the inability to detect it by single-cell analysis can lead to misdiagnosis of aneuploidy, which has been one of the reasons that D+3 biopsy has been abandoned in favour of blastocyst biopsy (Sermon et al., Reference Sermon, Capalbo, Cohen, Coonen, De Rycke, De Vos, Delhanty, Fiorentino, Gleicher, Griesinger, Grifo, Handyside, Harper, Kokkali, Mastenbroek, Meldrum, Meseguer, Montag, Munné, Rienzi, Rubio, Scott, Scott, Simon, Swain, Treff, Ubaldi, Vassena, Vermeesch, Verpoest, Wells and Geraedts2016).

Our results from trophectoderm biopsies analysed by aCGH showed that 4.0% of the analysed blastocysts were classified as euploid–aneuploid mosaics, in accordance with results presented by other authors using the same diagnostic technique (Greco et al., Reference Greco, Minasi and Fiorentino2015). Other groups performing PGT-A with next-generation sequencing (NGS) are detecting a higher percentage of mosaic blastocysts (20%) (Munné et al., 2016). This is because aCGH allows a reliable detection of mosaicism affecting ≥50% of the analysed cells (Mamas et al., Reference Mamas, Gordon, Brown, Harper and SenGupta2012) while more sensitive technologies such as NGS can detect lower levels (≥20%) (PGDIS, 2016). The application of this latter techniques could improve clinical outcomes by allowing a better selection of embryos (Maxwell et al., Reference Maxwell, Colls, Hodes-Wertz, McCulloh, McCaffrey, Wells, Munné and Grifo2016). Although the clinical significance of mosaicism is yet to be determined (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Gitlin, Patrick, Crain, Wilson and Griffin2014a), mosaic euploid–aneuploid embryos have been replaced and have generated healthy live births (Greco et al., Reference Greco, Minasi and Fiorentino2015; Maxwell et al., Reference Maxwell, Colls, Hodes-Wertz, McCulloh, McCaffrey, Wells, Munné and Grifo2016). The decision to transfer euploid–aneuploid mosaic blastocysts should be taken considering the chromosomal anomaly and the chromosomes involved and after proper genetic counselling to patients is given (Besser & Mounts, Reference Besser and Mounts2017).

We observed fewer cycles to transfer in Group 1 (59.8% vs. 70.6%). Although the number of euploid embryos was statistically similar between groups, fewer blastocysts available for transfer were finally obtained in Group 1. It has been postulated that D+3 biopsy can have a detrimental effect on embryo development (Scott et al., Reference Scott, Upham, Forman, Zhao and Treff2013), a fact that could explain our results showing a significant percentage of euploid D+3 biopsied embryos (24.7%) do not reach the blastocyst stage despite the fact that only one blastomere was removed.

According to our results, and regarding embryo transfer, lower numbers of embryos were replaced per transfer in Group 2 (1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.4), and while in this group the percentage of double embryo transfers (DET) was 22.2%, in Group 1 it was 43.0% (data not shown). As a result, multiple pregnancy rate was higher, although not statistically significant, in Group 1 (28.3% vs. 14.9%). When transferring two euploid embryos and achieving pregnancy, multiple pregnancies were very high (58.6% in Group 1 and 66.6% in Group 2; data not shown). This fact makes evident that single euploid blastocyst transfer must be strongly recommended in PGT-A cycles.

The increase in cycles to transfer in Group 2 led to a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate per cycle in this group. However, our results showed a similar live birth rate per cycle in both groups (29.6% vs. 35.3%). This can be partially explained by the fact that miscarriage rate is higher (although not statistically significant) in Group 2 for this series of results.

The fact that more embryos are available for transfer in Group 2 is a very important argument for blastocyst biopsy, as it could lead to improved cumulative outcomes. In fact, we observed a significantly higher cumulative delivery rate per initiated cycle with at least one live birth in Group 2 (34.1% vs. 44.6%).

In terms of cost efficiency, the trophectoderm biopsy approach would be preferable as D+3 embryos with inability to develop to the blastocyst stage will not be unnecessarily biopsied and analysed. Moreover, the fact that a deferred transfer allows the processing of multiple cases in batch, optimizing laboratory organization (time) and resources (consumables) needs also careful consideration when assessing the cost efficiency of both strategies.

One of the concerns of embracing a deferred transfer strategy is the embryo loss due to the vitrification procedure. However, with an optimal vitrification programme, our embryo loss is minimal (2.2%), which is similar to previous reports (Cobo et al., Reference Cobo, de los Santos, Castellò, Gámiz, Campos and Remohí2012; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Gitlin, Patrick, Crain, Wilson and Griffin2014b). Conversely, deferred transfer has been demonstrated to be a good strategy offering beneficial results in certain groups of patients, even when PGT-A is not performed (Roque et al., Reference Roque, Lattes, Serra, Solà, Geber, Carreras and Checa2013). Even though this schedule may be negatively perceived by the patients, especially those coming from abroad, deferred transfer could be beneficial to them (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Hannan, Edgell, Vollenhoven, Lutjen, Osianlis, Salamonsen and Rombauts2014; Coates et al., Reference Coates, Kung, Mounts, Hesla, Bankowski, Barbieri, Ata, Cohen and Munné2017).

A PGT-A strategy with trophectoderm biopsy and deferred transfer strategy should not be implemented without taking into consideration that its success will strongly depend on having an adequate programme for embryo culture to the blastocyst stage, well trained embryologists for trophectoderm biopsy, an optimal cryopreservation programme, and a well organized team. Even with all these in place, the effect of a learning curve will not allow the immediate achievement of the best results.

Conclusion

As our data show, both cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage biopsy approaches can offer good results. However, trophectoderm biopsy offers a more robust diagnosis and the intervention seems to cause less harm to the embryos. Moreover, more euploid blastocysts are available, which can ultimately lead to improved cumulative live birth rates.

This paper describes in detail the comparison of two PGT-A strategies: D+3 biopsy with fresh embryo transfer and trophectoderm biopsy with deferred embryo transfer. PGT-A programmes must evaluate these two strategies under their own laboratory and clinical conditions and opt for the one that is more beneficial for their patients.

Acknowledgements

This work was performed under the auspices of the Càtedra d'Investigació en Obstetrícia i Ginecologia of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universitari Dexeus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Statement of interest

None.

References

Adler, A., Lee, H.-L., McCulloh, D.H., Ampeloquio, E., Clarke-Williams, M., Wertz, B.H. & Grifo, J. (2014). Blastocyst culture selects for euploid embryos: comparison of blastomere and trophectoderm biopsies. Reprod. Biomed. Online 28, 485–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alikani, M., Calderon, G., Tomkin, G., Garrisi, J., Kokot, M. & Cohen, J. (2000). Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in vitro. Hum. Reprod. 15, 2634–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barri, P.N., Martinez, F., Coroleu, B. & Tur, R. (2002). The role of GnRH antagonists in assisted reproduction. Reprod. Biomed. Online 5 (Suppl. 1), 14–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besser, A.G. & Mounts, E.L. (2017). Counselling considerations for chromosomal mosaicism detected by preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod. Biomed. Online 34, 369–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bielanska, M., Jin, S., Bernier, M., Tan, S.L. & Ao, A. (2005). Diploid-aneuploid mosaicism in human embryos cultured to the blastocyst stage. Fertil. Steril. 84, 336–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boada, M., Carrera, M., De La Iglesia, C., Sandalinas, M., Barri, P.N. & Veiga, A. (1998). Successful use of a laser for human embryo biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis: report of two cases. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 15, 302–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capalbo, A., Wright, G., Elliott, T., Ubaldi, F.M., Rienzi, L. & Nagy, Z.P. (2013). FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum. Reprod. 28, 2298–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capalbo, A., Romanelli, V., Cimadomo, D., Girardi, L., Stoppa, M., Dovere, L., Dell'Edera, D., Ubaldi, F.M. & Rienzi, L. (2016). Implementing PGD/PGD-A in IVF clinics: considerations for the best laboratory approach and management. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33, 1279–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, A., Kung, A., Mounts, E., Hesla, J., Bankowski, B., Barbieri, E., Ata, B., Cohen, J. & Munné, S. (2017). Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 107, 723–30.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A., de los Santos, M.J., Castellò, D., Gámiz, P., Campos, P. & Remohí, J. (2012). Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil. Steril. 98, 1138–46.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coroleu, B., Barri, P.N., Carreras, O., Belil, I., Buxaderas, R., Veiga, A., & Balasch, J. (2006). Effect of using an echogenic catheter for ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in an IVF programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Hum. Reprod. 21, 1809–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahdouh, E.M., Balayla, J. & García-Velasco, J.A. (2015). Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod. Biomed. Online 30, 281–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Boer, K.A., Catt, JW., Jansen, RPS., Leigh, D. & McArthur, S. (2004). Moving to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and single embryo transfer at Sydney IVF. Fertil. Steril. 82, 295–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dokras, A., Sargent, I.L., Ross, C., Gardner, R.L. & Barlow, D.H. (1990). Trophectoderm biopsy in human blastocysts. Hum. Reprod. 5, 821–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J., Hannan, N.J., Edgell, T.A., Vollenhoven, B.J., Lutjen, P.J., Osianlis, T., Salamonsen, L.A. & Rombauts, L.J. (2014). Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum. Reprod. Update 20, 808–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forman, E.J., Hong, K.H., Treff, N.R. & Scott, R.T. (2012). Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving toward single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin. Reprod. Med. 30, 236–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E., Alfarawati, S., Daphnis, D.D., Goodall, N.-N., Mania, A., Griffiths, T., Gordon, A. & Wells, D. (2011). Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum. Reprod. 26, 480–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franasiak, J.M., Forman, E.J., Hong, K.H., Werner, M.D., Upham, K.M., Treff, N.R. & Scott, R.T. Jr. (2014). The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil. Steril. 101, 656–63.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greco, E., Minasi, M.G. & Fiorentino, F. (2015). Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. New Eng. J. Med. 373, 2089–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handyside, A.H. (2013). 24-chromosome copy number analysis: a comparison of available technologies. Fertil. Steril. 100, 595602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harton, G.L., Munné, S., Surrey, M., Grifo, J., Kaplan, B., McCulloh, D.H., Griffin, D.K., Wells, D. & PGD Practitioners Group. (2013). Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil. Steril. 100, 1695–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuwayama, M., Vajta, G., Kato, O. & Leibo, S.P. (2005). Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod. Biomed. Online 11, 300–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mamas, T., Gordon, A., Brown, A., Harper, J. & SenGupta, S. (2012). Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil. Steril. 97, 943–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., van Echten-Arends, J., Sikkema-Raddatz, B., Korevaar, J.C., Verhoeve, H.R., Vogel, N.E., Arts, E.G., de Vries, J.W., Bossuyt, P.M., Buys, C.H., Heineman, M.J., Repping, S. & van der Veen, F. (2007). In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. New Engl. J. Med. 357, 917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., van der Veen, F. & Repping, S. (2011). Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum. Reprod. Update 17, 454–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, S.M., Colls, P., Hodes-Wertz, B., McCulloh, D.H., McCaffrey, C., Wells, D., Munné, S. & Grifo, J.A. (2016). Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case–control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil. Steril. 106, 14149.e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertzanidou, A., Wilton, L., Cheng, J., Spits, C., Vanneste, E., Moreau, Y., Vermeesch, J.R., & Sermon, K. (2013). Microarray analysis reveals abnormal chromosomal complements in over 70% of 14 normally developing human embryos. Hum. Reprod. 28, 256–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S., Lee, A., Rosenwaks, Z., Grifo, J. & Cohen, J. (1993). Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. 8, 2185–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S., Grifo, J. & Wells, D. (2016). Mosaicism: “survival of the fittest” versus “no embryo left behind”. Fertil. Steril. 105, 1146–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northrop, L.E., Treff, N.R., Levy, B. & Scott, R.T. (2010). SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening demonstrates that cleavage-stage FISH poorly predicts aneuploidy in embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 16, 590600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parriego, M., Solé, M., Aurell, R., Barri, PN. & Veiga, A. (2007). Birth after transfer of frozen–thawed vitrified biopsied blastocysts. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 24, 147–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PGDIS (2016). Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS) position statement on chromosome mosaicism and preimplantation aneuploidy testing at the blastocyst stage. 2016. Available at: http://www.pgdis.org/docs/newsletter_071816.html Accessed 15 July 2017.Google Scholar
Roque, M., Lattes, K., Serra, S., Solà, I., Geber, S., Carreras, R. & Checa, M.A. (2013). Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 99, 156–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, R.T., Upham, K.M., Forman, E.J., Zhao, T. & Treff, N.R. (2013). Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil. Steril. 100, 624–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sermon, K., Capalbo, A., Cohen, J., Coonen, E., De Rycke, M., De Vos, A., Delhanty, J., Fiorentino, F., Gleicher, N., Griesinger, G., Grifo, J., Handyside, A., Harper, J., Kokkali, G., Mastenbroek, S., Meldrum, D., Meseguer, M., Montag, M., Munné, S., Rienzi, L., Rubio, C., Scott, K., Scott, R., Simon, C., Swain, J., Treff, N., Ubaldi, F., Vassena, R., Vermeesch, J.R., Verpoest, W., Wells, D. & Geraedts, J. (2016). The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 22, 845–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swain, J.E., Carrell, D., Cobo, A., Meseguer, M., Rubio, C. & Smith, G.D. (2016). Optimizing the culture environment and embryo manipulation to help maintain embryo developmental potential. Fertil. Steril. 105, 571–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, T.H., Gitlin, S.A., Patrick, J.L., Crain, J.L., Wilson, J.M. & Griffin, D.K. (2014a). The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum. Reprod. Update 20, 571–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, T.H., Patrick, J.L., Gitlin, S.A., Wilson, J.M., Crain, J.L. & Griffin, D.K. (2014b). Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod. Biomed. Online 29, 5964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treff, N.R. & Scott, R.T. (2012). Methods for comprehensive chromosome screening of oocytes and embryos: capabilities, limitations, and evidence of validity. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 29, 381–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Landuyt, L., De Vos, A., Joris, H., Verheyen, G., Devroey, P. & Van Steirteghem, A. (2005). Blastocyst formation in in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: influence of the fertilization procedure. Fertil. Steril. 83, 1397–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veiga, A., Sandalinas, M., Benkhalifa, M., Boada, M., Carrera, M., Santaló, J., Barri, P.N. & Ménézo, Y. (1997). Laser blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation diagnosis in the human. Zygote 5, 351–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, D., Alfarawati, S., Fragouli, E. (2008). Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 14, 703–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z., Zhang, J., Salem, S.A., Liu, X., Kuang, Y., Salem, R.D. & Liu, J. (2014). Selection of competent blastocysts for transfer by combining time-lapse monitoring and array CGH testing for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic screening: a prospective study with sibling oocytes. BMC Med. Genomics 7, 38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Cycles characteristics

Figure 1

Table 2 PGT-A results

Figure 2

Table 3 Clinical outcomesa

You have Access
11
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Transition from blastomere to trophectoderm biopsy: comparing two preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies strategies
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Transition from blastomere to trophectoderm biopsy: comparing two preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies strategies
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Transition from blastomere to trophectoderm biopsy: comparing two preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies strategies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *