Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

The Effects of Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) on Patient-Important Outcomes in Embryo Transfer Cases: A Meta-Analysis

Authors
Luis H Sordia-Hernandez 1
Felipe A Morales-Martinez 1
Fernando Díaz González-Colmenero 2
Andrea Flores-Rodriguez 2
Paloma C Leyva-Camacho 2
Maria Ofelia Sordia-Piñeyro 1
Otto H Valdés-Martínez 1
Selene M García-Luna 1
René Rodríguez-Guajardo 1
Luis H Sordia-Piñeyro 1
1 University Center of Reproductive Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Mexico; Departamento de Ginecología y Obstetricia, Hospital Universitario "Dr. José E. González", Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León
2 Plataforma Invest Medicina UANL Ker Unit Mayo Clinic (Ker Unit Mexico), Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Mexico
10.18502/jri.v23i4.10808
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT‐A) on patient-important reproductive outcomes after in vitro fertilization (IVF). Methods: Randomized and non-randomized studies have been sought in Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials since each database’s inception through May 2021. Main keywords used for the search strategy included "Embryo transfer", "In vitro fertilization", "DNA sequencing", and "Comparative genome hybridization". Studies were screened independently and in duplicate. Results: Ten studies were finally analyzed, representing a total of 2630 embryo transfers. The pooled OR for live birth rates were 1.45 (95%CI 0.24-8.78, I2 96%) and 1.66 (95%PI 0.15-18.01, 95%CI 0.98-2.83, I2 81%) derived from the NRSIs and the RCTs, respectively, in which the miscarriage rate were 1.25 (95%CI 0.19-8.33, I 2 70%) and 0.57 (95%PI 0.06-5.34, 95%CI 0.27-1.21, I 2 53%), and clinical pregnancy rates were 3.08 (95%CI 2.22-4.29, I 2 0%) and 1.43 (95%PI 0.38-5.42, 95%CI 0.96-2.13, I 2 68%). Influence analyses showed a greater treatment effect when excluding studies without patients at advanced maternal age. Conclusion: There seems to be no significant difference in reproductive outcomes when using PGT-A in the general population; however, the procedure seems advantageous for patients at advanced maternal age. Nevertheless, this warrants caution when recommending the procedure to all couples seeking ART, as the current possible benefits may not justify the additional costs for all groups of patients.
Keywords
Assisted Reproductive Techniques
comparative genomic hybridization
Embryo transfer
In vitro fertilization
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
  1. Solim ZNN, Stavers KC, Mustafa F, Lim R. Assessing characteristics which influence the success rate of in vitro fertilization. J Basic Clin Reprod Sci. 2021;10(3).
  2. Eskew AM, Jungheim ES. A history of developments to improve in vitro fertilization. Mo Med. 2017;114(3):156-9.
  3. Theobald R, SenGupta S, Harper J. The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(4):986-98.
  4. Harper JC, Boelaert K, Geraedts J, Harton G, Kearns WG, Moutou C, et al. ESHRE PGD consortium data collection V: cycles from january to december 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to october 2003. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):3-21.
  5. Nagaoka SI, Hassold TJ, Hunt PA. Human aneuploidy: mechanisms and new insights into an age-old problem. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(7):493-504.
  6. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(4):280-91.
  7. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, Kovalinskaya L, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(7):1923-7.
  8. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(1):100-7.e1.
  9. Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. 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. 2016;22(8):845-57.
  10. Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, Fleischer K, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;9(9):CD005291.
  11. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173-81.
  12. Scott RTJ, 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):624-30.
  13. Fiorentino F, Spizzichino L, Bono S, Biricik A, Kokkali G, Rienzi L, et al. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1925-35.
  14. Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, Ferry K, Katz-Jaffe M, Scott RTJ. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):638-40.
  15. Wells D. Next-generation sequencing: the dawn of a new era for preimplantation genetic diagnostics. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1250-1.
  16. Scott RTJ, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):697-703.
  17. Coetsier T, Dhont M. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in in-vitro fertilization: who’s afraid of single embryo transfer? Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2663-4.
  18. Maxwell SM, Grifo JA. Should every embryo undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy? A review of the modern approach to in vitro fertilization. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53:38-47.
  19. Mantravadi Sr. K, Debnath S, Sanjay Relekar NR, Rao Sr. DG. PGT-A doesn’t seem to benefit recurrent implantation failure couples to optimize live births. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(3):e436.
  20. Sciorio R, Dattilo M. PGT-A preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and embryo selection in routine ART cycles: Time to step back? Clin Genet. 2020;98(2):107-15.
  21. Neumann K, Sermon K, Bossuyt P, Goossens V, Geraedts J, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al. An economic analysis of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by polar body biopsy in advanced maternal age. BJOG. 2020;127(6):710-8.
  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
  23. McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, Keitz S, Leipzig R, For GG. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). CMAJ. 2004;171(11):1369-73.
  24. Duffy JMN, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S, Bofill M, Collura B, Curtis C, et al. Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(1):201-12.
  25. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
  26. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
  27. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013.; 2013.
  28. Mcmaster university. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro guideline development tool [Software] [Internet]. Evidence Prime, Inc.; 2020. Available from: gradepro.org
  29. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
  30. Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112-25.
  31. Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa TA, Ebert DD. Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. 1st ed. New York: Prot Lab Erlangen; 2019. 500 p.
  32. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-59.
  33. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700-6.
  34. Liss J, Pastuszek E, Pukszta S, Hoffmann E, Kuczynski W, Lukaszuk A, et al. Effect of next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing on live birth ratio. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2018;30(12):1720-7.
  35. Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Yoruk GDA, Candurmaz NN, Coetzee K. Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(4):629-36.
  36. Sato T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozawa F, Yamamoto T, Kato T, Kurahashi H, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(12):2340-8.
  37. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1071-9.e7.
  38. Greco E, Bono S, Ruberti A, Lobascio AM, Greco P, Biricik A, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization selection of blastocysts for repeated implantation failure treatment: a pilot study. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:457913.
  39. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5(1):24.
  40. Sui YL, Lei CX, Ye JF, Fu J, Zhang S, Li L, et al. In vitro fertilization with single-Nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy significantly improves clinical outcomes in infertile women with recurrent pregnancy loss: A randomized controlled trial. Reprod Dev Med. 2020;4(1):32-41.
  41. Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(2):382-91.
  42. Rubio C, Simón C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L, Pehlivan T, Remohí J, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(1):182-8.
  43. Practice committees of the American society for reproductive medicine and the society for assisted reproductive technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3):429-36.
  44. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1503-12.
  45. Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):473-83.
  46. Griesinger G. Beware of the ’implantation rate’! Why the outcome parameter “implantation rate” should be abandoned from infertility research. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):249-51.
  47. Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Maziotis E, Tsioulou P, Grigoriadis S, Rapani A, et al. PGT-A: who and when? a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(8):1939-57.
  48. Mochizuki L, Gleicher N. The PGS/PGT-A controversy in IVF addressed as a formal conflict resolution analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):677-87.
  49. Gleicher N, Patrizio P, Brivanlou A. Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy – a Castle Built on Sand. Trends Mol Med. 2021;27(8):731-42.
  50. McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, de Boer KA, Jansen RPS. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6):1628-36.
  51. Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C, Stavrou D, Jones GM, Cram DS, et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1443-9.
  52. Dekel-Naftali M, Aviram-Goldring A, Litmanovitch T, Shamash J, Yonath H, Hourvitz A, et al. Chromosomal integrity of human preimplantation embryos at different days post fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(5):633-48.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility
Volume 23, Issue 4
Autumn 2022
Pages 231-249