Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: Has the Controversy Settled? A Review

  • Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) (R Anchan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review is aimed at providing an overview of the development of, and advances in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in the last decade. It will summarize advances in the field to date, ongoing controversies, and explore ideas for future directions.

Recent Findings

Recent findings in the field of PGT-A include the publication of the STAR trial in 2019. This large RCT failed to find a benefit for PGT-A in women aged 25–40. As a result of increasing use of PGT-A with comprehensive genomic sequencing, the number of mosaic embryos identified has increased, with an ongoing debate as to the use of these embryos. Further research in this field includes the development of non-invasive pre-implantation testing, which may overcome some of the challenges noted in the field to date.

Summary

This review primarily focuses on the controversies in the field surrounding PGT-A, with suggestions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Bullet important (•) or very important (••) recent references (within past 3 years)

  1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2017;32(9):1786–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, et al. Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26(1):12–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dahdouh EM. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a review of the evidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(3):528–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Delhanty JDA. Is the polar body approach best for pre-implantation genetic screening? Placenta. 2011;32(Suppl 3):S268-270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Scott KL, Hong KH, Scott RT. Selecting the optimal time to perform biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):608–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):9–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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):454–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, Fleischer K, Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 19];(9). Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005291.pub3/full?highlightAbstract=genetic%7Cpreimplant%7Cgenet%7Cpreimplantation

  9. Zeng M, Su S, Li L. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(1):127–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobo A, de los Santos MJ, Castellò D, Gámiz P, Campos P, Remohí J. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012 Nov;98(5):1138–1146.e1.

  11. Zaat T, Zagers M, Mol F, Goddijn M, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 4;2:CD011184.

  12. Scott 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Scott 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):870–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Neal SA, Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Werner MD, Morin SJ, Tao X, et al. High relative deoxyribonucleic acid content of trophectoderm biopsy adversely affects pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):731-736.e1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brezina PR, Anchan R, Kearns WG. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):823–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tiegs AW, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Munné S, Grifo JA. Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):893–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Werner MD, Leondires MP, Schoolcraft WB, Miller BT, Copperman AB, Robins ED, et al. Clinically recognizable error rate after the transfer of comprehensive chromosomal screened euploid embryos is low. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1613–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang Z, Lin J, Zhang J, Fong WI, Li P, Zhao R, et al. Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study. BMC Med Genomics [Internet]. 2015 Jun 23 [cited 2021 Apr 9];8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477308/

  19. Aleksandrova N, Shubina E, Ekimov A, Kodyleva T, Mukosey I, Makarova N, et al. Comparison of the results of preimplantation genetic screening obtained by a-CGH and NGS methods from the same embryos. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(sup2):1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Friedenthal J, Maxwell SM, Munné S, Kramer Y, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, et al. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):627–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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):1071-1079.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schattman GL. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: it’s déjà vu all over again! Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1046–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gleicher N, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Homer H, Modi D, Murtinger M, et al. The 2019 PGDIS position statement on transfer of mosaic embryos within a context of new information on PGT-A. Reprod Biol Endocrinol RBE [Internet]. 2020 May 29 [cited 2021 Mar 23];18. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7257212/

  24. Haviland MJ, Murphy LA, Modest AM, Fox MP, Wise LA, Nillni YI, et al. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy using a matched propensity score design. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2020;35(10):2356–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cimadomo D, Soscia D, Vaiarelli A, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, et al. Looking past the appearance: a comprehensive description of the clinical contribution of poor-quality blastocysts to increase live birth rates during cycles with aneuploidy testing. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2019;34(7):1206–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaing A, Rosen MP, Quinn MM. Perceptions, motivations and decision regret surrounding preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2020;35(9):2047–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):571–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Munné S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, et al. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):62-71.e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Orvieto R. The reproducibility of trophectoderm biopsies - the chaos behind preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;254:57–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sachdev NM, McCulloh DH, Kramer Y, Keefe D, Grifo JA. The reproducibility of trophectoderm biopsies in euploid, aneuploid, and mosaic embryos using independently verified next-generation sequencing (NGS): a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):559–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Malvestiti F, Agrati C, Grimi B, Pompilii E, Izzi C, Martinoni L, et al. Interpreting mosaicism in chorionic villi: results of a monocentric series of 1001 mosaics in chorionic villi with follow-up amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn [Internet]. 2015 Nov [cited 2021 Mar 23];35(11). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26213308/

  32. Marin D, Xu J, Treff NR. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a review of published blastocyst reanalysis concordance data. Prenat Diagn [Internet]. [cited 2021 Mar 23];n/a(n/a). Available from: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5828

  33. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2089–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Singla S, Iwamoto-Stohl LK, Zhu M, Zernicka-Goetz M. Autophagy-mediated apoptosis eliminates aneuploid cells in a mouse model of chromosome mosaicism. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):2958.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Grati FR, Gallazzi G, Branca L, Maggi F, Simoni G, Yaron Y. An evidence-based scoring system for prioritizing mosaic aneuploid embryos following preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36(4):442–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020 Aug;114(2):246–54.

  37. Lin P-Y, Lee C-I, Cheng E-H, Huang C-C, Lee T-H, Shih H-H, et al. Clinical outcomes of single mosaic embryo transfer: high-level or low-Level mosaic embryo, does it matter? J Clin Med [Internet]. 2020 Jun 2 [cited 2021 Mar 23];9(6). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7356018/

  38. Capalbo A, Poli M, Rienzi L, Girardi L, Cimadomo D, Benini F, et al. A prospective double-blinded non-selection trial of reproductive outcomes and chromosomal normalcy of newborns derived from putative low/moderate-degree mosaic IVF embryos. medRxiv. 2021 Feb 8;2021.02.07.21251201.

  39. Chuang T-H, Chang Y-P, Lee M-J, Wang H-L, Lai H-H, Chen S-U. The incidence of mosaicism for individual chromosome in human blastocysts is correlated with chromosome length. Front Genet [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 24];11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.565348/full

  40. Shahbazi MN, Wang T, Tao X, Weatherbee BAT, Sun L, Zhan Y, et al. Developmental potential of aneuploid human embryos cultured beyond implantation. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3987.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lathi RB. Transfer of aneuploid or mosaic embryos following preimplantation genetic testing [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2021 Mar [cited 2021 Apr 8]. Report No.: NCT04109846. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04109846

  42. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Pomante A, Crivello AM, Cafueri G, Valerio M, et al. Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2014 Dec;102(6):1692–1699.e6.

  43. Palini S, Galluzzi L, Stefani SD, Bianchi M, Wells D, Magnani M, et al. Genomic DNA in human blastocoele fluid. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):603–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hammond ER, Shelling AN, Cree LM. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in blastocoele fluid and embryo culture medium: evidence and potential clinical use. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016;31(8):1653–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Leaver M, Wells D. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT): the next revolution in reproductive genetics? Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(1):16–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Rubio C, Navarro-Sánchez L, García-Pascual CM, Ocali O, Cimadomo D, Venier W, et al. Multicenter prospective study of concordance between embryonic cell-free DNA and trophectoderm biopsies from 1301 human blastocysts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(5):751.e1-751.e13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Huang L, Bogale B, Tang Y, Lu S, Xie XS, Racowsky C. Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in spent medium may be more reliable than trophectoderm biopsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(28):14105–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Rubio C, Racowsky C, Barad DH, Scott RT, Simon C. Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in spent culture medium as a substitute for trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(4):841–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, 02143, USA

    Roisin Mortimer & Elizabeth Ginsburg

  2. Center for Infertility and Reproductive Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, 02143, USA

    Elizabeth Ginsburg

Authors
  1. Roisin Mortimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Ginsburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roisin Mortimer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

  1. a)

    This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

  2. b)

    All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mortimer, R., Ginsburg, E. Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: Has the Controversy Settled? A Review. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 11, 48–54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-021-00322-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-021-00322-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation