Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage

Schoolcraft, William B.; Fragouli, Elpida; Stevens, John; Munné, Santiago; Katz‐Jaffe, Mandy G.; Wells, Dagan

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.015

Cited by 309 publications

(258 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 summarizes the very limited number of reports, attempting to validate CGH in association with trophectoderm biopsy or using this clinical approach towards PGS, here given the acronym PGS#2. Despite, obviously, limited data in support, proponents of such an approach have voiced strong expectations that such an approach would, ultimately, benefit IVF outcomes [11,12,[14][15][16]31].…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Convinced that these technical improvements will beneficially impact on clinical efficacy, PGS #2 is, therefore, widely viewed as a significant improvement over PGS#1, which, according to opinion leaders, will finally produce the clinical benefits predicted by the "theory" of PGS [12]. Such a conclusion is, however, predicated on the unproven assumption that PGS#1 in principle failed because of technical shortcomings, now remedied by above described procedural and technical modifications.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

Gleicher

Barad

2012

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

Gleicher

Barad

2012

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Elective single blastocyst embryo transfer has been shown to have equivalent implantation and pregnancy rates compared to double embryo transfer while significantly reducing the rate of twin gestations [16]. Emerging technology like preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is used to select a single euploid embryo for transfer, therefore, improving pregnancy rates and decreasing the miscarriage rate due to aneuploidy [17][18][19][20]. PGS relies more on blastocyst-stage biopsies which pose less risk of damage to the embryo and allow for the genetic analysis of a greater number of cells reducing the risk of misdiagnosis secondary to mosaicism [21][22][23][24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference?

Maxwell

Melzer-Ross²,

McCulloh

et al. 2015

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine if day of embryo transfer (ET) affects gestational age (GA) and/or birth weight (BW) at a single university fertility center that primarily performs day 5/6 ET. Methods Retrospective cohort study of 2392 singleton live births resulting from IVF/ICSI at a single large university fertility center from 2003 to 2012. Patients were stratified by day 3 or day 5/6 ET. Outcome variables included patient age, gravidity, prior miscarriages, prior assisted reproduction technology cycles, number of embryos transferred, number of single ET, infertility diagnosis, neonatal sex, GA at birth, and BW. Subanalyses were performed on subgroups of preterm infants. A comparison was made between the study data and the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) published data. Results There was no difference in GA at birth (39±2.1 weeks for day 3 ET, 39±1.9 weeks for day 5/6 ET) or BW between ET groups (3308±568 g for day 3 ET, 3268±543 g for day 5/6 ET). There was also no difference in the number of preterm deliveries (8.5 % for day 3 ET vs. 10.8 % for day 5/6 ET). The day 5/6 ET study data had significantly fewer pre-term deliveries than the SART day 5/6 ET data. Conclusion In contrast to published SART data, GA and BW were not influenced by day of ET. Data may be more uniform at a single institution. Day 5/6 ET continues to offer improved pregnancy rates without compromising birth outcomes.

show abstract

“…For PGS, 3-10 cells are biopsied from the trophectoderm of a day 5 or day 6 blastocyst for chromosome analysis. This approach has been validated by several groups that have demonstrated increased ongoing pregnancy, implantation and delivery rates of nearly 20% with PGS-screened vs non-PGS-screened embryos (Schoolcraft et al 2010, Yang et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Granulosa cell biomarkers to predict pregnancy in ART: pieces to solve the puzzle

Kordus

LaVoie

2017

Reproduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulus and mural granulosa cells of the ovarian follicle surround and interact with the developing oocyte. These follicular cells reflect the oocyte's overall health and may indicate subsequent developmental competence of embryos. Biomarkers of granulosa cells associated with individual oocytes could potentially be used in assisted reproduction to indicate which embryos have the best chance of implanting in the uterus and completing gestation. In this review, we have performed a comprehensive assessment of the recent literature for human cumulus and mural granulosa cell mRNA biomarkers as they relate to pregnancy and live birth. A critical discussion of variables affecting granulosa gene expression profiles for in vitro fertilization patients, including patient demographics and ovarian stimulation regimens, is presented. Although studies with microarray data were evaluated, this synopsis focuses on expressed genes that have been validated by quantitative RT-PCR. Furthermore, we summarize the current published data that support or refute identified granulosa expressed genes as potential biomarkers of embryos that give rise to ongoing pregnancy and live birth. Finally, we review studies that offer predictive models for embryo selection for uterine transfer based on biomarkers that show differential gene expression. Reproduction (2017) 153 R69-R83

show abstract

Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage

Cited by 309 publications

References 33 publications

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

A comparison of pregnancy outcomes between day 3 and day 5/6 embryo transfers: does day of embryo transfer really make a difference?

Granulosa cell biomarkers to predict pregnancy in ART: pieces to solve the puzzle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About