Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Coates, Alison; Bankowski, Brandon J.; Kung, Allen; Griffin, Darren K.; Munne, Santiago (2016)
Publisher: Springer US
Journal: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Donor egg, Genetics(clinical), Developmental Biology, Q, Genetics, Assisted Reproduction Technologies, Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidy (PGS), Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aneuploidy, IVF, Reproductive Medicine

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: urogenital system, embryonic structures
Purpose This study aims to test the hypothesis, in a single-center retrospective analysis, that live birth rates are significantly different when utilizing preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) compared to not utilizing PGS in frozen–thawed embryo transfers in our patients that use eggs from young, anonymous donors. The question therefore arises of whether PGS is an appropriate intervention for donor egg cycles. Methods Live birth rates per cycle and live birth rates per embryo transferred after 398 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles were examined from patients who elected to have PGS compared to those who did not. Blastocysts derived from donor eggs underwent trophectoderm biopsy and were tested for aneuploidy using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS), then vitrified for future use (test) or were vitrified untested (control). Embryos were subsequently warmed and transferred into a recipient or gestational carrier uterus. Data was analyzed separately for single embryo transfer (SET), double embryo transfer (DET), and for own recipient uterus and gestational carrier (GC) uterus recipients. Results Rates of implantation of embryos leading to a live birth were significantly higher in the PGS groups transferring two embryos (DET) compared to the no PGS group (GC, 72 vs. 56 %; own uterus, 60 vs. 36 %). The live birth implantation rate in the own uterus group for SET was higher in the PGS group compared to the control (58 vs. 36 %), and this almost reached significance but the live birth implantation rate for the SET GC group remained the same for both tested and untested embryos. Live births per cycle were nominally higher in the PGS GC DET and own uterus SET and DET groups compared to the non-PGS embryo transfers. These differences almost reached significance. The live birth rate per cycle in the SET GC group was almost identical. Conclusions Significant differences were noted only for DET; however, benefits need to be balanced against risks associated with multiple pregnancies. Results observed for SET need to be confirmed on larger series and with randomized cohorts.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. SART. Published IVF data 2013.
    • 2. Munne 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;14:628-34.
    • 3. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. 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. 2014;101:656-63.e1.
    • 4. Munne S, Bahce M, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Marquez C, Velilla E, et al. Differences in chromosome susceptibility to aneuploidy and survival to first trimester. Reprod BioMed Online. 2004;8:81- 90.
    • 5. Werner M, Reh A, Grifo J, Perle MA. Characteristics of chromosomal abnormalities diagnosed after spontaneous abortions in an infertile population. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:817-20.
    • 6. Kim JW, Lee WS, Yoon TK, Seok HH, Cho JH, Kim YS, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous abortion after assisted reproductive treatment. BMC Med Genet. 2010;11:153.
    • 7. SART. ORM live birth rates 2012.
    • 8. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695-703.
    • 9. 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;94:1700-6.
    • 10. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG. Comprehensive chromosome screening of trophectoderm with vitrification facilitates elective 24.
    • single-embryo transfer for infertile women with advanced maternal age. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:615-9.
    • Hodes-Wertz B, Grifo J, Ghadir S, Kaplan B, Laskin CA, Glassner M, et al. Idiopathic recurrent miscarriage is caused mostly by aneuploid embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:675-80.
    • Scott Jr RT, 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.
    • Forman EJ, Hong KH, Treff NR, Scott RT. Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving toward single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30:236-42.
    • Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Wilson RD, Audibert F, Brock JA, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC J d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Can JOGC. 2015;37:451-63.
    • Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGS): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30: 473-83.
    • Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0140779.
    • Verpoest W, Haentjens P, De Rycke M, Staessen C, Sermon K, Bonduelle M, et al. Cumulative reproductive outcome after preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a report on 1498 couples. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2951-9.
    • Sahin L, Bozkurt M, Sahin H, Gurel A, Yumru AE. Is preimplantation genetic diagnosis the ideal embryo selection method in aneuploidy screening? Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014;30:491-8.
    • Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1503-12.
    • Wide range of chromosome abnormalities in the embryos of young egg donors. Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;12:340-6.
    • Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;24: 614-20.
    • Sills ES, Li X, Frederick JL, Khoury CD, Potter DA. Determining parental origin of embryo aneuploidy: analysis of genetic error observed in 305 embryos derived from anonymous donor oocyte IVF cycles. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:68.
    • Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from donated eggs and the necessity of the embryos for aneuploidy screening. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(6):999-1006.
    • Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanchez-Garcia J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:953-8.
    • 26. Wells D, Kaur K, Grifo J, Glassner M, Taylor JC, Fragouli E, et al. Clinical utilisation of a rapid low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J Med Genet. 2014;51:553-62.
    • 27. Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst culture and transfer increases the efficiency of oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2000;74: 482-6.
    • 28. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340:17-8.
    • 29. Roque M, Valle M, Guimaraes F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1190-3.
    • 30. GGardner D, Schoolcraft W. In Vitro Culture of human Blastocysts. Jansen R, Mortimer D (Eds). Toward Reproductive certainty: Fertility, Genetics and Beyond. Carnforth, UK. Parthenon Publishing; 1999. P. 378-88.
    • 31. Doherty LF, Martin JR, Kayisli U, Sakkas D, Patrizio P. Fresh transfer outcome predicts the success of a subsequent frozen transfer utilizing blastocysts of the same cohort. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28:204-8.
    • 32. McLernon DJ, Maheshwari A, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rates after one or more complete cycles of IVF: a population-based study of linked cycle data from 178 898 women. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:572-81.
    • 33. Zenke U, Chetkowski RJ. Transfer and uterine factors are the major recipient-related determinants of success with donor eggs. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:850-6.
    • 34. Styer AK, Luke B, Vitek W, Christianson MS, Baker VL, Christy AY, et al. Factors associated with the use of elective single-embryo transfer and pregnancy outcomes in the United States, 2004-2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;104(3):e102.
    • 35. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott Jr RT. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:157.e1-6.
    • 36. Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G, et al. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: preand post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2097-106.
    • 37. Munne S, Alikani M, Barritt J, Hesla J, Kaplan B, Alper M, McCulloh D. Egg donor aneuploidy rates significantly differ between fertility centers. ASRM abstract submitted. 2015.
    • 38. Jenderny J. Chromosome aberrations in a large series of spontaneous miscarriages in the German population and review of the literature. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:38.
    • 39. Hook EB, Cross PK, Schreinemachers DM. Chromosomal abnormality rates at amniocentesis and in live-born infants. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1983;249:2034-8.
    • 40. Shen J, Wu W, Gao C, Ochin H, Qu D, Xie J, et al. Chromosomal copy number analysis on chorionic villus samples from early spontaneous miscarriages by high throughput genetic technology. Mol Cytogenet. 2016;9:7.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article