Search

Recent advances in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) have significantly enhanced its application in ART, providing critical insights into embryo viability, and potentially reducing both the time spent in fertility treatments and the risk of pregnancy loss. With the integration of next-generation sequencing, PGT-A now offers greater diagnostic precision, although challenges related to segmental aneuploidies and mosaicism remain. The emergence of non-invasive PGT-A (niPGT-A), which analyzes DNA in spent embryo culture media, promises a simpler aneuploidy screening method. This mini review assesses the methodological criteria for test validation, the current landscape of PGT-A, and the potential of niPGT-A, while evaluating its advantages and potential pitfalls. It underscores the importance of a robust three-phase validation process to ensure the clinical reliability of PGT-A. Despite initial encouraging data, niPGT-A not only confronts issues of DNA amplification failure and diagnostic inaccuracies but also has yet to meet the three-prong criteria required for appropriate test validation, necessitating further research for its clinical adoption. The review underscores that niPGT-A, like traditional PGT-A, must attain the high standards of precision and reliability expected of any genetic testing platform used in clinical settings before it can be adopted into routine ART protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in women who underwent up to two more euploid blastocyst transfers after three failures in the absence of another known factor that affects implantation? SUMMARY ANSWER The fourth and fifth euploid blastocyst transfers resulted in similar live birth rates of 40% and 53.3%, respectively, culminating in a cumulative live birth rate of 98.1% (95% CI = 96.5–99.6%) after five euploid blastocyst transfers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The first three euploid blastocysts have similar implantation and live birth rates and provide a cumulative live birth rate of 92.6%. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An international multi-center retrospective study was conducted at 25 individual clinics. The study period spanned between January 2012 and December 2022. A total of 123 987 patients with a total of 64 572 euploid blastocyst transfers were screened for inclusion. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Patients with a history of any embryo transfer at another clinic, history of any unscreened embryo transfer at participating clinics, parental karyotype abnormalities, the use of donor oocytes or a gestational carrier, untreated intracavitary uterine pathology (e.g. polyp, leiomyoma), congenital uterine anomalies, adenomyosis, communicating hydrosalpinx, endometrial thickness <6 mm prior to initiating of progesterone, use of testicular sperm due to non-obstructive azoospermia in the male partner, transfer of an embryo with a reported intermediate chromosome copy number (i.e. mosaic), preimplantation genetic testing cycles for monogenic disorders, or structural chromosome rearrangements were excluded. Ovarian stimulation protocols and embryology laboratory procedures including trophectoderm biopsy followed the usual practice of each center. The ploidy status of blastocysts was determined with comprehensive chromosome screening. Endometrial preparation protocols followed the usual practice of participating centers and included programmed cycles, natural or modified natural cycles. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 105 (0.085% of the total population) patients met the criteria and underwent at least one additional euploid blastocyst transfer after failing to achieve a positive pregnancy test with three consecutive euploid blastocyst transfers. Outcomes of the fourth and fifth euploid blastocyst transfers were similar across participating centers. Overall, the live birth rate was similar with the fourth and fifth euploid blastocysts (40% vs 53.3%, relative risk = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.93–1.9, P value = 0.14). Sensitivity analyses excluding blastocysts biopsied on Day 7 postfertilization, women with a BMI >30 kg/m2, cycles using non-ejaculate or donor sperm, double-embryo transfer cycles, and cycles in which the day of embryo transfer was modified due to endometrial receptivity assay test result yielded similar results. Where data were available, the fourth euploid blastocyst had similar live birth rate with the first one (relative risk = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58–1.21, P  = 0.29). The cumulative live birth rate after five euploid blastocyst transfers was 98.1% (95% CI = 96.5–99.6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Retrospective design has its own inherent limitations. Patients continuing with a further euploid embryo transfer and patients dropping out from treatment after three failed euploid transfers can be systematically different, perhaps with regard to ovarian reserve or economic status. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS Implantation failure seems to be mainly due to embryonic factors. Given the stable and high live birth rates up to five euploid blastocysts, unexplained recurrent implantation failure should have a prevalence of <2%. Proceeding with another embryo transfer can be the best next step once a known etiology for implantation failure is ruled out. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s) None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]