Previously reported and here added cases demonstrate euploid pregnancies followed by PGT-A as “mosaic” as well as “aneuploid” designated embryos

BACKGROUND: After the longest time opposing all transfers of embryos by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) diagnosed as “chromosomal-abnormal,” the field has over recent years slowly been moving toward selective transfers of by PGT-A as “mosaic” diagnosed embryos, but is still rejecting transfers of embryos by PGT-A defined as “aneuploid.” METHODS: Upon review of the literature, we report published cases of euploid pregnancies following transfers of PGT-A as “aneuploid” diagnosed embryos and add several additional, ongoing cases at our center. RESULTS: Among the published cases from our center, we identified seven euploid pregnancies from “aneuploid” embryos, four of which preceded the PGT-A industry’s 2016 switch from binary “euploid” – “aneuploid” reporting to “euploid,” “mosaic,” and “aneuploid” reporting. That those four cases post 2016 PGT-A definition involving “mosaic” embryos, therefore, cannot be ruled out. Since then, we recently established three additional ongoing pregnancies from transfers of “aneuploid” embryos which still await confirmation of euploidy after delivery. A recent fourth pregnancy from the transfer of a trisomy 9 embryo miscarried before a fetal heart. Outside our own center’s experience, the literature revealed only one additional such transfer, involving PGT-A as a “chaotic-aneuploid” diagnosed embryo with six abnormalities, leading to normal euploid delivery. In reviewing the literature, we furthermore demonstrate why current PGT-A reporting that differentiates between “mosaic” and “aneuploid” embryos based on relative percentages of euploid and aneuploid DNA in a single trophectoderm biopsy of on average 5-6 cells, is biologically non-sensical. CONCLUSION: Basic biological evidence and a clinically still very limited experience with transfers of PGT-A as “aneuploid” labeled embryos demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that at least some “aneuploid” embryos can lead to healthy euploid births. Therefore, this observation establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the rejection of all “aneuploid” embryos from transfer reduces pregnancy and live birth chances for IVF patients. Whether (and to what possible degree) pregnancy and live birth chances differ between “mosaic” and “aneuploid” embryos, remains to be determined. The answer will likely depend on the aneuploidy(ies) of an embryo and to what degree percentages of “mosaicism” in a single, on average 5/6-cell trophectoderm biopsy can reflect the ploidy-status of a complete embryo.