Evidence-based Clinical Prioritization of Embryos with Mosaic Results: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2021 Sep 2

PMID 34472017

Citations 5

Authors

Ali Mourad

Roland Antaki

Francois Bissonnette

Obey Al Baini

Boutros Saadeh

Wael Jamal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to standardize the practice of mosaic embryo transfer, based on the current available evidence.

Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Relevant studies published were comprehensively selected using PubMed, Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until 5 March 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting the genetic analysis and clinical outcomes of mosaic embryo transfer were included. Risk of bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the non-randomized studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were combined ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate and miscarriage rate, respectively.

Results: There were no differences between low and high mosaic embryos when a cut-off of 40% was used in terms of OP/LBR and SAB. However, low mosaics with a cut-off of 50% compared to high mosaics showed a significantly higher OP/LBR in the NGS but not in the a-CGH group, and a significantly lower risk of SAB. No differences were noted between mosaic monosomies versus trisomies and single versus double mosaics for both OP/LBR and SAB. Finally, segmental mosaics showed a higher OP/LBR and a lower SAB compared to whole chromosomes, and single and double mosaics had a higher OP/LBR compared to complex mosaics.

Conclusions: A cut-off of 50% in defining low versus high mosaic embryos is preferable to a threshold of 40% when using NGS platform. No priority was established for mosaic trisomies over monosomies. Single and double mosaics must be preferred over complex mosaics and segmental mosaics must be preferred over whole chromosome mosaics. These results should be interpreted in the context of specific chromosomes involved in the mosaicism.

Citing Articles

Evolution of Minimally Invasive and Non-Invasive Preimplantation Genetic Testing: An Overview.

Moustakli E, Zikopoulos A, Skentou C, Bouba I, Dafopoulos K, Georgiou I J Clin Med. 2024; 13(8).

PMID: 38673433 PMC: 11050362. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13082160.

Mosaicism in preimplantation embryos: Are we overinterpreting the results?.

Schattman G F S Rep. 2023; 4(3):251.

PMID: 37719096 PMC: 10504555. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2023.07.001.

Mosaic results after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy may be accompanied by changes in global gene expression.

Martin A, Mercader A, Dominguez F, Quinonero A, Perez M, Gonzalez-Martin R Front Mol Biosci. 2023; 10:1180689.

PMID: 37122560 PMC: 10140421. DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1180689.

What proportion of embryos should be considered for transfer following a mosaic diagnosis? A study of 115 clinics from a central diagnostic laboratory.

Sanders K, Griffin D, Martell H, Blazek J, Large M, Gordon T J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 40(3):653-664.

PMID: 36708429 PMC: 10033805. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02678-8.

ESHRE survey results and good practice recommendations on managing chromosomal mosaicism.

De Rycke M, Capalbo A, Coonen E, Coticchio G, Fiorentino F, Goossens V Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(4):hoac044.

PMID: 36349144 PMC: 9637425. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac044.

References

Wolstenholme J, Rooney D, Davison E . Confined placental mosaicism, IUGR, and adverse pregnancy outcome: a controlled retrospective U.K. collaborative survey. Prenat Diagn. 1994; 14(5):345-61. DOI: 10.1002/pd.1970140505. View

Vejerslev L, Mikkelsen M . The European collaborative study on mosaicism in chorionic villus sampling: data from 1986 to 1987. Prenat Diagn. 1989; 9(8):575-88. DOI: 10.1002/pd.1970090807. View

Foulkes W, Real F . Many mosaic mutations. Curr Oncol. 2013; 20(2):85-7. PMC: 3615857. DOI: 10.3747/co.20.1449. View

Smidt-Jensen S, Lind A, Permin M, Zachary J, Lundsteen C, Philip J . Cytogenetic analysis of 2928 CVS samples and 1075 amniocenteses from randomized studies. Prenat Diagn. 1993; 13(8):723-40. DOI: 10.1002/pd.1970130807. View

Fragouli E, Lenzi M, Ross R, Katz-Jaffe M, Schoolcraft W, Wells D . Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(11):2596-608. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den287. View

Maxwell S, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh D, McCaffrey C, Wells D . Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case-control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(6):1414-1419.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.017. View

. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020; 114(2):246-254. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.014. View

Lai H, Chuang T, Wong L, Lee M, Hsieh C, Wang H . Identification of mosaic and segmental aneuploidies by next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic screening can improve clinical outcomes compared to array-comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Cytogenet. 2017; 10:14. PMC: 5405548. DOI: 10.1186/s13039-017-0315-7. View

Lledo B, Morales R, Ortiz J, Blanca H, Ten J, Llacer J . Implantation potential of mosaic embryos. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017; 63(3):206-208. DOI: 10.1080/19396368.2017.1296045. View

10.

. Medical Research Council European trial of chorion villus sampling. MRC working party on the evaluation pf chorion villus sampling. Lancet. 1991; 337(8756):1491-9. View

11.

Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A, Harper J, SenGupta S . Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97(4):943-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.048. View

12.

Greco E, Minasi M, Fiorentino F . Healthy Babies after Intrauterine Transfer of Mosaic Aneuploid Blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(21):2089-90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1500421. View

13.

Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F . Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2008; 92(3):890-896. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1761. View

14.

Grati F, Gallazzi G, Branca L, Maggi F, Simoni G, Yaron Y . An evidence-based scoring system for prioritizing mosaic aneuploid embryos following preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 36(4):442-449. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.005. View

15.

Liu Y, Yu T, Chen C, Wang P, Chen C, Tzeng C . Healthy live births after mosaic blastocyst transfers with the use of next-generation sequencing. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 58(6):872-876. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.07.032. View

16.

Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Ruberti A, Cotroneo E . Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertil Steril. 2017; 109(1):77-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.09.025. View

17.

Gleicher N, Albertini D, Barad D, Homer H, Modi D, Murtinger M . The 2019 PGDIS position statement on transfer of mosaic embryos within a context of new information on PGT-A. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020; 18(1):57. PMC: 7257212. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-020-00616-w. View

18.

Victor A, Tyndall J, Brake A, Lepkowsky L, Murphy A, Griffin D . One hundred mosaic embryos transferred prospectively in a single clinic: exploring when and why they result in healthy pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2019; 111(2):280-293. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.019. View

19.

Capalbo A, Rienzi L . Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(5):1098-1106. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.023. View

20.

Stang A . Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(9):603-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. View