» Articles » PMID: 35857256

To Mask or Not to Mask Mosaicism? The Impact of Reporting Embryo Mosaicism on Reproductive Potential

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2022 Jul 20
PMID 35857256
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate euploidy rates and probability of having at least one euploid embryo for transfer per cycle when mosaicism is reported compared to when it is masked.

Methods: Women age 18-46 years who underwent PGT-A with next generation sequencing of blastocyst biopsies were analyzed. When reported, mosaic embryos were classified as low-level, 20-40% mosaic, or high-level, 41-80% mosaic. When masked, low-level mosaics were categorized as euploid and high-level mosaics were considered aneuploid. Comparative analyses were performed with χ tests and t-tests.

Results: A total of 22,504 PGT-A biopsy cycles from 18,401 patients were included. These cycles were from 293 different clinics with a mean of 1.22 cycles per patient. The majority of cycles (94.8%) reported mosaicism, and only 5.2% cycles were masked. The euploidy rate was significantly lower when mosaicism was reported versus masked (38.7% v 47.4%, p < 0.0001), which remained significant for age 40 years old and younger. The mosaic reporting cohort was less likely to have at least one euploid embryo for transfer (68.8%) compared to the masked cohort (75.7%) (p < 0.0001); however, this was no longer significant after stratification by age.

Conclusion: Mosaicism reporting shows an overall expected reduction in euploidy rate. In turn, the probability of having a euploid embryo to transfer depends on clinic transfer practices and patient preference. If mosaic embryos are not transferred, we observe a reduction in probability of having an embryo for transfer. Although the magnitude of these differences is small, our data show that mosaic reporting may contribute to embryo attrition rate.

Citing Articles

The nature of embryonic mosaicism across female age spectrum: an analysis of 21,345 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles.

Armstrong A, Kroener L, Miller J, Nguyen A, Kwan L, Quinn M F S Rep. 2023; 4(3):256-261.

PMID: 37719098 PMC: 10504531. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2023.03.008.


Embryo Culture Medium Has No Impact on Mosaicism Rates: a Sibling Oocyte Study.

Abdala A, Elkhatib I, Bayram A, El-Damen A, Melado L, Lawrenz B Reprod Sci. 2023; 30(11):3296-3304.

PMID: 37253937 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-023-01276-y.


Elucidating the PGT-A paradox: marginalising the detriment relegates the benefit.

Scriven P J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022; 39(11):2475-2481.

PMID: 36282412 PMC: 9723032. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02640-8.

References
1.
Martin J, Cervero A, Mir P, Martinez-Conejero J, Conejero Martinez J, Pellicer A . The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(4):1054-61.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.001. View

2.
Roche K, Racowsky C, Harper J . Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(5):1045-1053. PMC: 8190209. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02078-4. View

3.
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

4.
Munne S, Wells D . Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(5):1085-1091. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.024. View

5.
Taylor T, Gitlin S, Patrick J, Crain J, Wilson J, Griffin D . The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20(4):571-81. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu016. View