Cargando…
In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing
OBJECTIVE: To compare in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes for preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) using various testing platforms. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Large academic IVF center. PATIENT(S): Fifty-one balanced translocation carriers...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8244371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2020.09.011 |
_version_ | 1783715920295755776 |
---|---|
author | Bartels, Chantal B. Makhijani, Reeva Godiwala, Prachi Bartolucci, Alison Nulsen, John C. Grow, Daniel R. Engmann, Lawrence Benadiva, Claudio A. |
author_facet | Bartels, Chantal B. Makhijani, Reeva Godiwala, Prachi Bartolucci, Alison Nulsen, John C. Grow, Daniel R. Engmann, Lawrence Benadiva, Claudio A. |
author_sort | Bartels, Chantal B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes for preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) using various testing platforms. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Large academic IVF center. PATIENT(S): Fifty-one balanced translocation carriers undergoing IVF with PGT-SR who completed a total of 91 cycles, including 31 fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), 24 microarray comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), and 36 next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing cycles. INTERVENTION(S): PGT-SR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome of live-birth rate and secondary outcomes including implantation rate, clinical loss rate, and percentages of normal or balanced, unbalanced, and aneuploid embryos detected. RESULT(S): There was no statistically significant difference in LBR, though there was a tendency toward a higher LBR for NGS testing (14 of 19, 73.7%) compared with FISH (8 of 18, 44.4%) and aCGH (10 of 20, 50.0%). The implantation rate was statistically significantly higher for NGS (16 of 20, 80.0%) compared with FISH (11 of 25, 44.0%) and aCGH (16 of 30, 53.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy losses. There was a lower percentage of normal or balanced embryos with FISH (12.5%) compared with aCGH (23.7%) and with NGS (20.7%). CONCLUSION(S): This is the first report of PGT-SR outcomes for translocation carriers directly comparing PGT-SR using FISH, aCGH, and NGS. Our findings suggest an improvement in pregnancy outcomes parallel to the advancement in technology and are reassuring for continued use of NGS for this population. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8244371 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82443712021-07-02 In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing Bartels, Chantal B. Makhijani, Reeva Godiwala, Prachi Bartolucci, Alison Nulsen, John C. Grow, Daniel R. Engmann, Lawrence Benadiva, Claudio A. F S Rep Original Article OBJECTIVE: To compare in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes for preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) using various testing platforms. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Large academic IVF center. PATIENT(S): Fifty-one balanced translocation carriers undergoing IVF with PGT-SR who completed a total of 91 cycles, including 31 fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), 24 microarray comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), and 36 next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing cycles. INTERVENTION(S): PGT-SR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome of live-birth rate and secondary outcomes including implantation rate, clinical loss rate, and percentages of normal or balanced, unbalanced, and aneuploid embryos detected. RESULT(S): There was no statistically significant difference in LBR, though there was a tendency toward a higher LBR for NGS testing (14 of 19, 73.7%) compared with FISH (8 of 18, 44.4%) and aCGH (10 of 20, 50.0%). The implantation rate was statistically significantly higher for NGS (16 of 20, 80.0%) compared with FISH (11 of 25, 44.0%) and aCGH (16 of 30, 53.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy losses. There was a lower percentage of normal or balanced embryos with FISH (12.5%) compared with aCGH (23.7%) and with NGS (20.7%). CONCLUSION(S): This is the first report of PGT-SR outcomes for translocation carriers directly comparing PGT-SR using FISH, aCGH, and NGS. Our findings suggest an improvement in pregnancy outcomes parallel to the advancement in technology and are reassuring for continued use of NGS for this population. Elsevier 2020-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8244371/ /pubmed/34223252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2020.09.011 Text en © 2020 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Bartels, Chantal B. Makhijani, Reeva Godiwala, Prachi Bartolucci, Alison Nulsen, John C. Grow, Daniel R. Engmann, Lawrence Benadiva, Claudio A. In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
title | In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
title_full | In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
title_fullStr | In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
title_full_unstemmed | In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
title_short | In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
title_sort | in vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8244371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2020.09.011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bartelschantalb invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT makhijanireeva invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT godiwalaprachi invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT bartoluccialison invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT nulsenjohnc invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT growdanielr invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT engmannlawrence invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing AT benadivaclaudioa invitrofertilizationoutcomesafterpreimplantationgenetictestingforchromosomalstructuralrearrangementscomparingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationmicroarraycomparativegenomichybridizationandnextgenerationsequencing |