Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles

被引:94
|
作者
Friedenthal, Jenna [1 ]
Maxwell, Susan M. [1 ]
Munne, Santiago [2 ]
Kramer, Yael [1 ]
McCulloh, David H. [1 ]
McCaffrey, Caroline [1 ]
Grifo, James A. [1 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Langone Fertil Ctr, New York, NY USA
[2] Cooper Genom, Livingston, NJ USA
关键词
Next generation sequencing; array comparative genomic hybridization; preimplantation genetic screening; mosaicism; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION; MOSAIC BLASTOCYSTS; ANEUPLOIDY; VALIDATION; DIAGNOSIS; IMPLANTATION; PROTOCOL; STAGE; CGH;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.017
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate whether the use of next generation sequencing (NGS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in single thawed euploid embryo transfer (STEET) cycles improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Single university-based fertility center. Patient(s): A total of 916 STEET cycles from January 2014 to December 2016 were identified. Cases included 548 STEET cycles using NGS for PGS and controls included 368 STEET cycles using aCGH for PGS. Intervention(s): Patients having a STEET after undergoing IVF and PGS with either NGS or aCGH. Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary outcomes were implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (OP/LBR), biochemical pregnancy rate (PR), and spontaneous abortion (SAB) rate. Result(s): The implantation rate was significantly higher in the NGS group compared with the aCGH group (71.6% vs. 64.6%). The OP/ LBR was also significantly higher in the NGS group (62% vs. 54.4%), and there were significantly more biochemical pregnancies in the aCGH group compared with the NGS group (15.1% vs. 8.7%). After adjustment for confounding variables with a multiple logistic regression analysis, OP/LBR remained significantly higher in the NGS group. The SAB rate was not significantly different in the NGS group compared with the aCGH group (12.4% vs. 12.7%). Conclusion(s): Preimplantation genetic screening using NGS significantly improves pregnancy outcomes versus PGS using aCGH in STEET cycles. Next-generation sequencing has the ability to identify and screen for embryos with reduced viability such as mosaic embryos and those with partial aneuploidies or triploidy. Pregnancy outcomes with NGS may be improved due to the exclusion of these abnormal embryos. (C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:627 / 632
页数:6
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Clinical error rates of next generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization with single thawed euploid embryo transfer
    Friedenthal, Jenna
    Maxwell, Susan M.
    Tiegs, Ashley W.
    Besser, Andria G.
    McCaffrey, Caroline
    Munne, Santiago
    Noyes, Nicole
    Grifo, James A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2020, 63 (05)
  • [2] PREGNANCY OUTCOMES ARE SIMILAR IN NATURAL COMPARED TO PROGRAMMED SINGLE THAWED EUPLOID EMBRYO TRANSFER (STEET) CYCLES WITH NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING (NGS).
    Kearney, J. C.
    Maxwell, S. M.
    McCulloh, D. H.
    Noyes, N.
    Grifo, J. A.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2018, 110 (04) : E368 - E369
  • [3] SECOND GENERATION ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY FOR PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC TESTING (PGT) IMPROVES PREGNANCY OUTCOMES IN SINGLE THAWED EUPLOID EMBRYO TRANSFER CYCLES (STEET).
    Buldo-Licciardi, Julia
    Large, Mike
    McCulloh, David H.
    McCaffrey, Caroline
    Grifo, James A.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2020, 114 (03) : E71 - E71
  • [4] SELECTION OF SINGLE EUPLOID BLASTOCYSTS FOR TRANSFER VIA PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC SCREENING WITH EITHER NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING OR ARRAY COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION: A RANDOMIZED PILOT STUDY
    Yang, Z.
    Lin, J.
    Zhang, J.
    Kuang, Y.
    Liu, J.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2015, 104 (03) : E13 - E13
  • [5] IMPROVED PREGNANCY RATES FOLLOWING TRANSFER OF EUPLOID EMBRYOS SCREENED BY NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING COMPARED TO ARRAY COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION.
    Macer, M. L.
    Barritt, J.
    Surrey, M. W.
    Danzer, H.
    Ghadir, S.
    Wang, E.
    Pisarska, M. D.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2017, 107 (03) : E27 - E28
  • [6] Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study
    Yang, Zhihong
    Lin, James
    Zhang, John
    Fong, Wai Ieng
    Li, Pei
    Zhao, Rong
    Liu, Xiaohong
    Podevin, William
    Kuang, Yanping
    Liu, Jiaen
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL GENOMICS, 2015, 8
  • [7] Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study
    Zhihong Yang
    James Lin
    John Zhang
    Wai Ieng Fong
    Pei Li
    Rong Zhao
    Xiaohong Liu
    William Podevin
    Yanping Kuang
    Jiaen Liu
    [J]. BMC Medical Genomics, 8
  • [8] Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study
    Yang, Z.
    Zhang, J.
    Lin, J.
    Fong, W.
    Ieong, K.
    Li, P.
    Zhao, R.
    Liu, X.
    Kuang, Y.
    Michel, C.
    Salem, R.
    Liu, J.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2015, 30 : 50 - 51
  • [9] Comparative results of preimplantation genetic screening by array comparative genomic hybridization and new-generation sequencing
    N. V. Aleksandrova
    E. S. Shubina
    A. N. Ekimov
    T. A. Kodyleva
    I. S. Mukosey
    N. P. Makarova
    E. V. Kulakova
    L. A. Levkov
    I. Yu. Barkov
    D. Yu. Trofimov
    G. T. Sukhikh
    [J]. Molecular Biology, 2017, 51 : 269 - 273
  • [10] Comparative results of preimplantation genetic screening by array comparative genomic hybridization and new-generation sequencing
    Aleksandrova, N. V.
    Shubina, E. S.
    Ekimov, A. N.
    Kodyleva, T. A.
    Mukosey, I. S.
    Makarova, N. P.
    Kulakova, E. V.
    Levkov, L. A.
    Barkov, I. Yu.
    Trofimov, D. Yu.
    Sukhikh, G. T.
    [J]. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 2017, 51 (02) : 269 - 273