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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bartels, Chantal B., Makhijani, Reeva, Godiwala, Prachi, Bartolucci, Alison, Nulsen, John C., Grow, Daniel R., Engmann, Lawrence, Benadiva, Claudio A.
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