» Articles » PMID: 29080968

Sex Selection for Non-medical Indications: a Survey of Current Pre-implantation Genetic Screening Practices Among U.S. ART Clinics

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2017 Oct 30
PMID 29080968
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the current percentage of United States (U.S.) assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics offering sex selection via pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) for non-medical purposes.

Methods: The authors conducted website review and telephone interview survey of 493 U.S. ART clinics performing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 2017. Main outcome measures were pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS)/pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices and non-medical sex selection practices including family balancing.

Results: Of the 493 ART clinics in the USA, 482 clinics (97.8%) responded to our telephone interview survey. Among all U.S. ART clinics, 91.9% (n = 449) reported offering PGS and/or PGD. Furthermore, 476 clinics responded to survey questions about sex selection practices. Of those ART clinics, 72.7% (n = 346) reported offering sex selection. More specifically among those clinics offering sex selection, 93.6% (n = 324) reported performing sex selection for family balancing, and 81.2% (n = 281) reported performing for elective purposes (patient preference, regardless of rationale for the request). For couples without infertility, 83.5% (n = 289) of clinics offer sex selection for family balancing and 74.6% (n = 258) for non-specific elective reasons.

Conclusions: The majority of U.S. ART clinics offer non-medical sex selection, a percentage that has increased substantially since last reported in 2006.

Citing Articles

Best quality vs. sex selection - an analysis of embryo selection preferences for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy over a 10-year period.

Gill P, Whitehead C, Werner M, Seli E J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(8):2211-2216.

PMID: 38914899 PMC: 11339188. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03162-1.


Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).

Alon I, Bussod I, Ravitsky V J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(5):1153-1171.

PMID: 38512655 PMC: 11143109. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03076-y.


Sex ratio of offspring is not statistically altered following pre-implantation genetic testing under a specific sex selection policy.

Bakkensen J, Speedy S, Mumm M, Boots C Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023; 308(5):1605-1610.

PMID: 37610634 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-07190-7.


A comment on: A non-randomized clinical trial to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel sperm sex selection technique.

Pennings G PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0282208.

PMID: 36857399 PMC: 9977028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282208.


Perceptions towards sex selection among Jordanian population: A survey study.

Banihani S, Alzoubi K, Shawaqfeh M, Vasudevan S Andrologia. 2022; 54(9):e14501.

PMID: 35725245 PMC: 9444869. DOI: 10.1111/and.14501.


References
1.
. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 360: Sex selection. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(2 Pt 1):475-8. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200702000-00063. View

2.
Hens K, Dondorp W, Geraedts J, de Wert G . Comprehensive embryo testing. Experts' opinions regarding future directions: an expert panel study on comprehensive embryo testing. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(5):1418-25. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det018. View

3.
Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson K . Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2007; 89(5):1053-1058. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.048. View

4.
Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar J, Verhoeve H . In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(1):9-17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa067744. View

5.
. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(6):1418-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.035. View