A Multicenter, Prospective, Blinded, Nonselection Study Evaluating the Predictive Value of an Aneuploid Diagnosis Using a Targeted Next-generation Sequencing-based Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Assay and Impact of Biopsy
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: To determine the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis with a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) assay in prognosticating the failure of a successful delivery.
Design: Prospective, blinded, multicenter, nonselection study. All usable blastocysts were biopsied, and the single best morphologic blastocyst was transferred before genetic analysis. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy was performed after clinical outcome was determined. Clinical outcomes were compared to PGT-A results to calculate the predictive value of a PGT-A aneuploid diagnosis.
Setting: Fertility centers.
Patient(s): Couples undergoing their first in vitro fertilization cycle without recurrent pregnancy loss, antral follicle count < 8, or body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m.
Intervention(s): None.
Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary outcome was the ability of the analytical result of aneuploid to predict failure to deliver (clinical result). A secondary outcome was the impact of the trophectoderm biopsy on sustained implantation.
Result(s): Four hundred two patients underwent 484 single, frozen, blastocyst transfers. The PGT-A aneuploid diagnosis clinical error rate was 0%. There was no difference in sustained implantation between the study group and an age-matched control group, where biopsy was not performed (47.9% vs. 45.8).
Conclusion(s): The PGT-A assay evaluated was highly prognostic of failure to deliver when an aneuploid result was obtained. Additionally, the trophectoderm biopsy had no detectable adverse impact on sustained implantation.
Clinical Trial Registration Numbers: NCT02032264 and NCT03604107.
APCAD Part 2: A Novel Method for Detection of Meiotic Aneuploidy in Preimplantation Embryos.
Verdyck P, Berckmoes V, Fernandez Gallardo E, Keymolen K, Olsen C, De Rycke M Genes (Basel). 2025; 16(2).
PMID: 40004444 PMC: 11854904. DOI: 10.3390/genes16020115.
Embryo versus endometrial receptivity: untangling a complex debate.
Mercan R, Guzel Y, Usta I, Alper E Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2025; 16:1537847.
PMID: 39911920 PMC: 11797072. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1537847.
Turgut N, Boynukalin F, Gultomruk M, Yarkiner Z, Abali R, Bahceci M J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 42(1):193-200.
PMID: 39562396 PMC: 11806171. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03329-w.
Shan G, Abdalla K, Liu H, Dai C, Tan J, Law J Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024; 22(1):132.
PMID: 39468586 PMC: 11514912. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01302-x.
De Witte L, Baetens M, Tilleman K, Vanden Meerschaut F, Janssens S, Van Tongerloo A Hum Reprod Open. 2024; 2024(4):hoae056.
PMID: 39391861 PMC: 11461285. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoae056.