4.7 Review

Chromosomal mosaicism detected during preimplantation genetic screening: results of a worldwide Web-based survey

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 107, Issue 5, Pages 1092-1097

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.119

Keywords

Aneuploidy; chromosomal aberrations; in vitro fertilization; mosaicism; preimplantation genetic screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Embryonic mosaicism, the presence of more than one distinct cell line within an embryo, has recently become the focus of growing attention and controversy in the context of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). To evaluate the extent of mosaic aneuploidy in clinical practice and to gain insight on the practices and views regarding this issue, we conducted a survey using a prospective, 20-item Web-based questionnaire with questions related to practices and views regarding mosaicism in PGS. A total of 102 in vitro fertilization (IVF) units from 32 countries that performed 108,900 IVF cycles annually responded to the survey. More than half responded that embryonic mosaic aneuploidy is reported by the laboratory, but 31.9% stated that samples are reported as euploid or aneuploid only. If mosaic aneuploidy is reported, 46% stated that it was present in <= 10% of the embryos. More than two-thirds were of the opinion that next-generation sequencing is required to reliably detect mosaicism. Among centers performing PGS, 47.9% consider embryonic mosaicism when detected in >20% of the cells, and nearly two-thirds believe that mosaic aneuploid embryos should be stored for potential therapeutic use after extensive and appropriate counseling. In summary, mosaicism has always existed in preimplantation embryos, and new technologies can now detect its presence with higher resolution. More studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn. (C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available