Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: The management of mosaic embryos

  • Yu, Eun Jeong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Fertility Center Seoul Station, CHA University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Min Jee (Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Life Sciences, CHA University) ;
  • Park, Eun A (Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Life Sciences, CHA University) ;
  • Kang, Inn Soo (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Fertility Center Daegu, CHA University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2022.03.31
  • Accepted : 2022.06.24
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As the resolution and accuracy of diagnostic techniques for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) are improving, more mosaic embryos are being identified. Several studies have provided evidence that mosaic embryos have reproductive potential for implantation and healthy live birth. Notably, mosaic embryos with less than 50% aneuploidy have yielded a live birth rate similar to euploid embryos. This concept has led to a major shift in current PGT-A practice, but further evidence and theoretically relevant data are required. Proper guidelines for selecting mosaic embryos suitable for transfer will reduce the number of discarded embryos and increase the chances of successful embryo transfer. We present an updated review of clinical outcomes and practice recommendations for the transfer of mosaic embryos using PGT-A.

Keywords

References

  1. Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanchez-Garcia J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril 2011;95:953-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.010
  2. Paulson RJ, Treff NR. Isn't it time to stop calling preimplantation embryos "mosaic"? F S Rep 2020;1:164-5.
  3. Abhari S, Kawwass JF. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after transfer of mosaic embryos: a review. J Clin Med 2021;10:1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10071369
  4. Viotti M, Victor AR, Barnes FL, Zouves CG, Besser AG, Grifo JA, et al. Using outcome data from one thousand mosaic embryo transfers to formulate an embryo ranking system for clinical use. Fertil Steril 2021;115:1212-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.041
  5. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2089-90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1500421
  6. Capalbo A, Poli M, Rienzi L, Girardi L, Patassini C, Fabiani M, et al. Mosaic human preimplantation embryos and their developmental potential in a prospective, non-selection clinical trial. Am J Hum Genet 2021;108:2238-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.002
  7. Yakovlev P, Vyatkina S, Polyakov A, Pavlova M, Volkomorov V, Yakovlev M, et al. Neonatal and clinical outcomes after transfer of a mosaic embryo identified by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies. Reprod Biomed Online 2022;45:88-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.01.010
  8. Zhang YX, Chen JJ, Nabu S, Yeung QS, Li Y, Tan JH, et al. The pregnancy outcome of mosaic embryo transfer: a prospective multicenter study and meta-analysis. Genes (Basel) 2020;11:973. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11090973
  9. Gleicher N, Barad DH, Ben-Rafael Z, Glujovsky D, Mochizuki L, Modi D, et al. Commentary on two recently published formal guidelines on management of "mosaic" embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2021;19:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00716-1
  10. Cram DS, Leigh D, Handyside A, Rechitsky L, Xu K, Harton G, et al. PGDIS position statement on the transfer of mosaic embryos 2019. Reprod Biomed Online 2019;39 Suppl 1:e1-4.
  11. Gleicher N, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Homer H, Modi D, Murtinger M, et al. The 2019 PGDIS position statement on transfer of mosaic embryos within a context of new information on PGT-A. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2020;18:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-020-00616-w
  12. Tiegs AW, Tao X, Zhan Y, Whitehead C, Kim J, Hanson B, et al. 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. Fertil Steril 2021;115:627-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.052
  13. Levy B, Hoffmann ER, McCoy RC, Grati FR. Chromosomal mosaicism: origins and clinical implications in preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2021;41:631-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5931
  14. Gleicher N, Patrizio P, Brivanlou A. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a castle built on sand. Trends Mol Med 2021;27:731-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2020.11.009
  15. Capalbo A, Rienzi L. Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Fertil Steril 2017;107:1098-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.023
  16. Mertzanidou A, Wilton L, Cheng J, Spits C, Vanneste E, Moreau Y, et al. Microarray analysis reveals abnormal chromosomal complements in over 70% of 14 normally developing human embryos. Hum Reprod 2013;28:256-64. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des362
  17. Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, Filby A, Gemelos G, Hill M, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:944-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaq062
  18. Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Nagy ZP. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2298-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det245
  19. Liu J, Wang W, Sun X, Liu L, Jin H, Li M, et al. DNA microarray reveals that high proportions of human blastocysts from women of advanced maternal age are aneuploid and mosaic. Biol Reprod 2012;87:148. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolreprod/87.s1.148
  20. Vera-Rodriguez M, Rubio C. Assessing the true incidence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 2017;107:1107-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.019
  21. Daphnis DD, Delhanty JD, Jerkovic S, Geyer J, Craft I, Harper JC. Detailed FISH analysis of day 5 human embryos reveals the mechanisms leading to mosaic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2005;20:129-37. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh554
  22. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Garcia-Pascual C, Peinado V, Campos-Galindo I, Garcia-Herrero S, et al. Clinical application of embryo aneuploidy testing by next-generation sequencing. Biol Reprod 2019;101:1083-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioz019
  23. Girardi L, Serdarogullari M, Patassini C, Poli M, Fabiani M, Caroselli S, et al. Incidence, origin, and predictive model for the detection and clinical management of segmental aneuploidies in human embryos. Am J Hum Genet 2020;106:525- 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.03.005
  24. Babariya D, Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. The incidence and origin of segmental aneuploidy in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2549-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex324
  25. Tarozzi N, Nadalini M, Lagalla C, Coticchio G, Zaca C, Borini A. Male factor infertility impacts the rate of mosaic blastocysts in cycles of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:2047-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01584-w
  26. Kahraman S, Sahin Y, Yelke H, Kumtepe Y, Tufekci MA, Yapan CC, et al. High rates of aneuploidy, mosaicism and abnormal morphokinetic development in cases with low sperm concentration. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020;37:629-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01673-w
  27. Silber S, Escudero T, Lenahan K, Abdelhadi I, Kilani Z, Munne S. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction. Fertil Steril 2003;79:30-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04407-2
  28. Rodrigo L, Peinado V, Mateu E, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Simon C, et al. Impact of different patterns of sperm chromosomal abnormalities on the chromosomal constitution of preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1380-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.061
  29. Garcia-Pascual CM, Navarro-Sanchez L, Navarro R, Martinez L, Jimenez J, Rodrigo L, et al. Optimized NGS approach for detection of aneuploidies and mosaicism in PGT-A and imbalances in PGTSR. Genes (Basel) 2020;11:724. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11070724
  30. Swain JE. Controversies in ART: can the IVF laboratory influence preimplantation embryo aneuploidy? Reprod Biomed Online 2019;39:599-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.06.009
  31. Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, Fischer CP, Forman EJ. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:153-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1347-6
  32. PGDIS. PGDIS position statement on chromosome mosaicism and preimplantation aneuploidy testing at the blastocyst stage [Internet]. Northbrook: PGDIS; 2016 [cited 2022 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.pgdis.org/docs/newsletter_071816.html.
  33. IVF-Worldwide.com. COGEN position statement on chromosomal mosaicism detected in preimplantation blastocyst biopsies [Internet]. IVF-Worldwide.com; 2017 [cited 2022 Aug 10]. Available from: https://ivf-worldwide.com/cogen/oep/publications/cogen-position-statement-on-chromosomal-mosaicism-detected-in-preimplantation-blastocyst-biopsies.html.
  34. Grati FR, 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;36:442-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.005
  35. Munne S, Spinella F, Grifo J, Zhang J, Beltran MP, Fragouli E, et al. Clinical outcomes after the transfer of blastocysts characterized as mosaic by high resolution next generation sequencing-further insights. Eur J Med Genet 2020;63:103741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.103741
  36. Leigh D, Cram DS, Rechitsky S, Handyside A, Wells D, Munne S, et al. PGDIS position statement on the transfer of mosaic embryos 2021. Reprod Biomed Online 2022;45:19-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.013
  37. Practice Committee and Genetic Counseling Professional Group (GCPG) of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Clinical management of mosaic results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) of blastocysts: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2020;114:246-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.014
  38. Spinella F, Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Bono S, Ruberti A, Cotroneo E, et al. Extent of chromosomal mosaicism influences the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization treatments. Fertil Steril 2018;109:77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.09.025
  39. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Babariya D, Tarozzi N, Borini A, et al. Analysis of implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates following the transfer of mosaic diploid-aneuploid blastocysts. Hum Genet 2017;136:805-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-017-1797-4
  40. Munne S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, et al. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril 2017;108:62-71.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.002
  41. Lin PY, Lee CI, Cheng EH, Huang CC, Lee TH, Shih HH, et al. Clinical outcomes of single mosaic embryo transfer: high-level or low-level mosaic embryo, does it matter? J Clin Med 2020;9:1695. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061695
  42. Victor AR, Tyndall JC, Brake AJ, Lepkowsky LT, Murphy AE, Griffin DK, et al. One hundred mosaic embryos transferred prospectively in a single clinic: exploring when and why they result in healthy pregnancies. Fertil Steril 2019;111:280-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.019
  43. Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Degree of mosaicism in trophectoderm does not predict pregnancy potential: a corrected analysis of pregnancy outcomes following transfer of mosaic embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2018;16:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-018-0322-5
  44. Lee CI, Cheng EH, Lee MS, Lin PY, Chen YC, Chen CH, et al. Healthy live births from transfer of low-mosaicism embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020;37:2305-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01876-6
  45. Grau Madsen S, Uldbjerg N, Sunde L, Becher N; Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group; Danish Clinical Genetics Study Group. Prognosis for pregnancies with trisomy 16 confined to the placenta: a Danish cohort study. Prenat Diagn 2018;38:1103-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5370
  46. Rius M, Daina G, Obradors A, Ramos L, Velilla E, Fernandez S, et al. Comprehensive embryo analysis of advanced maternal age-related aneuploidies and mosaicism by short comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril 2011;95:413-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.1051
  47. McCoy RC, Demko ZP, Ryan A, Banjevic M, Hill M, Sigurjonsson S, et al. Evidence of selection against complex mitotic-origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet 2015; 11:e1005601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005601
  48. Harton GL, Cinnioglu C, Fiorentino F. Current experience concerning mosaic embryos diagnosed during preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril 2017;107:1113-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.016
  49. Dawson AJ, McGowan-Jordan J, Chernos J, Xu J, Lavoie J, Wang JC, et al. Canadian college of medical geneticists guidelines for the indications, analysis, and reporting of cancer specimens. Curr Oncol 2011;18:e250-5.
  50. Kearney HM, Kearney JB, Conlin LK. Diagnostic implications of excessive homozygosity detected by SNP-based microarrays: consanguinity, uniparental disomy, and recessive single-gene mutations. Clin Lab Med 2011;31:595-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2011.08.003
  51. Chuang TH, Chang YP, Lee MJ, Wang HL, Lai HH, Chen SU. The incidence of mosaicism for individual chromosome in human blastocysts is correlated with chromosome length. Front Genet 2021;11:565348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.565348
  52. Johnson DS, Gemelos G, Baner J, Ryan A, Cinnioglu C, Banjevic M, et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1066-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep452
  53. Bunnell ME, Wilkins-Haug L, Reiss R. Should embryos with autosomal monosomy by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy be transferred? Implications for embryo selection from a systematic literature review of autosomal monosomy survivors. Prenat Diagn 2017;37:1273-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5185
  54. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mercader A, Mateu E, Buendia P, Pehlivan T, et al. Impact of chromosomal abnormalities on preimplantation embryo development. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:748-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1773
  55. Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril 2009;92:890-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1761
  56. Sachdev NM, Maxwell SM, Besser AG, Grifo JA. Diagnosis and clinical management of embryonic mosaicism. Fertil Steril 2017;107:6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.006
  57. Treff NR, Franasiak JM. Detection of segmental aneuploidy and mosaicism in the human preimplantation embryo: technical considerations and limitations. Fertil Steril 2017;107:27-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.039
  58. Coll L, Parriego M, Mateo S, Garcia-Monclus S, Rodriguez I, Boada M, et al. Prevalence, types and possible factors influencing mosaicism in IVF blastocysts: results from a single setting. Reprod Biomed Online 2021;42:55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.025
  59. Lai HH, Chuang TH, Wong LK, Lee MJ, Hsieh CL, Wang HL, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-017-0315-7
  60. Zhang L, Wei D, Zhu Y, Gao Y, Yan J, Chen ZJ. Rates of live birth after mosaic embryo transfer compared with euploid embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:165-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1322-2
  61. Wang L, Wang X, Liu Y, Ou X, Li M, Chen L, et al. IVF embryo choices and pregnancy outcomes. Prenat Diagn 2021;41:1709-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6042
  62. Nakhuda G, Jing C, Butler R, Guimond C, Hitkari J, Taylor E, et al. Frequencies of chromosome-specific mosaicisms in trophoectoderm biopsies detected by next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril 2018;109:857-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.011
  63. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1173-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu033
  64. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. Aneuploidy across individual chromosomes at the embryonic level in trophectoderm biopsies: changes with patient age and chromosome structure. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:1501-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0333-x
  65. Iwarsson E, Malmgren H, Inzunza J, Ahrlund-Richter L, Sjoblom P, Rosenlund B, et al. Highly abnormal cleavage divisions in preimplantation embryos from translocation carriers. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:1038-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0223(200012)20:13<1038::AID-PD976>3.0.CO;2-8
  66. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Jaroudi S, Sarasa J, Enciso M, et al. The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Genet 2013;132:1001-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-013-1309-0
  67. Escriba MJ, Vendrell X, Peinado V. Segmental aneuploidy in human blastocysts: a qualitative and quantitative overview. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2019;17:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0515-6
  68. Lledo B, Morales R, Ortiz JA, Blanca H, Ten J, Llacer J, et al. Implantation potential of mosaic embryos. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2017;63:206-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/19396368.2017.1296045
  69. Mounts EL, Zhu SO, Sanderson RK, Coates A, Hesla JS. Mosaic embryo diagnosis correlated with abnormal 15q duplication syndrome in offspring. Fertil Steril 2019;112:e241-2.
  70. Kahraman S, Cetinkaya M, Yuksel B, Yesil M, Pirkevi Cetinkaya C. The birth of a baby with mosaicism resulting from a known mosaic embryo transfer: a case report. Hum Reprod 2020;35:727-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez309
  71. Besser AG, Mounts EL. Counselling considerations for chromosomal mosaicism detected by preimplantation genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34:369-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.01.003
  72. Anchan RM, Quaas P, Gerami-Naini B, Bartake H, Griffin A, Zhou Y, et al. Amniocytes can serve a dual function as a source of iPS cells and feeder layers. Hum Mol Genet 2011;20:962-74. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddq542
  73. Del Gaudio D, Shinawi M, Astbury C, Tayeh MK, Deak KL, Raca G, ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. Diagnostic testing for uniparental disomy: a points to consider statement from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2020;22:1133-41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0782-9
  74. Choi H, Lau TK, Jiang FM, Chan MK, Zhang HY, Lo PS, et al. Fetal aneuploidy screening by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: 'false positive' due to confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:198-200. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4024