Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations.

BACKGROUND: The genetic composition of embryos generated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be examined with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Until recently, PGT was limited to detecting single-gene, high-risk pathogenic variants, large structural variants, and aneuploidy. Recent advances have made genome-wide genotyping of IVF embryos feasible and affordable, raising the possibility of screening embryos for their risk of polygenic diseases such as breast cancer, hypertension, diabetes, or schizophrenia. Despite a heated debate around this new technology, called polygenic embryo screening (PES; also PGT-P), it is already available to IVF patients in some countries. Several articles have studied epidemiological, clinical, and ethical perspectives on PES; however, a comprehensive, principled review of this emerging field is missing. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review has four main goals. First, given the interdisciplinary nature of PES studies, we aim to provide a self-contained educational background about PES to reproductive specialists interested in the subject. Second, we provide a comprehensive and critical review of arguments for and against the introduction of PES, crystallizing and prioritizing the key issues. We also cover the attitudes of IVF patients, clinicians, and the public towards PES. Third, we distinguish between possible future groups of PES patients, highlighting the benefits and harms pertaining to each group. Finally, our review, which is supported by ESHRE, is intended to aid healthcare professionals and policymakers in decision-making regarding whether to introduce PES in the clinic, and if so, how, and to whom. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for PubMed-indexed articles published between 1/1/2003 and 1/3/2024 using the terms 'polygenic embryo screening', 'polygenic preimplantation', and 'PGT-P'. We limited the review to primary research papers in English whose main focus was PES for medical conditions. We also included papers that did not appear in the search but were deemed relevant. OUTCOMES: The main theoretical benefit of PES is a reduction in lifetime polygenic disease risk for children born after screening. The magnitude of the risk reduction has been predicted based on statistical modelling, simulations, and sibling pair analyses. Results based on all methods suggest that under the best-case scenario, large relative risk reductions are possible for one or more diseases. However, as these models abstract several practical limitations, the realized benefits may be smaller, particularly due to a limited number of embryos and unclear future accuracy of the risk estimates. PES may negatively impact patients and their future children, as well as society. The main personal harms are an unindicated IVF treatment, a possible reduction in IVF success rates, and patient confusion, incomplete counselling, and choice overload. The main possible societal harms include discarded embryos, an increasing demand for 'designer babies', overemphasis of the genetic determinants of disease, unequal access, and lower utility in people of non-European ancestries. Benefits and harms will vary across the main potential patient groups, comprising patients already requiring IVF, fertile people with a history of a severe polygenic disease, and fertile healthy people. In the United States, the attitudes of IVF patients and the public towards PES seem positive, while healthcare professionals are cautious, sceptical about clinical utility, and concerned about patient counselling. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The theoretical potential of PES to reduce risk across multiple polygenic diseases requires further research into its benefits and harms. Given the large number of practical limitations and possible harms, particularly unnecessary IVF treatments and discarded viable embryos, PES should be offered only within a research context before further clarity is achieved regarding its balance of benefits and harms. The gap in attitudes between healthcare professionals and the public needs to be narrowed by expanding public and patient education and providing resources for informative and unbiased genetic counselling.

Preimplantation genetic testing for Neurofibromatosis type 1: more than 20 years of clinical experience.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant disorder that affects the skin and the nervous system. The condition is completely penetrant with extreme clinical variability, resulting in unpredictable manifestations in affected offspring, complicating reproductive decision-making. One of the reproductive options to prevent the birth of affected offspring is preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). We performed a retrospective review of the medical files of all couples (n = 140) referred to the Dutch PGT expert center with the indication NF1 between January 1997 and January 2020. Of the couples considering PGT, 43 opted out and 15 were not eligible because of failure to identify the underlying genetic defect or unmet criteria for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The remaining 82 couples proceeded with PGT. Fertility assessment prior to IVF treatment showed a higher percentage of male infertility in males affected with NF1 compared to the partners of affected females. Cardiac evaluations in women with NF1 showed no contraindications for IVF treatment or pregnancy. For 67 couples, 143 PGT cycles were performed. Complications of IVF treatment were not more prevalent in affected females compared to partners of affected males. The transfer of 174 (out of 295) unaffected embryos led to 42 ongoing pregnancies with a pregnancy rate of 24.1% per embryo transfer. There are no documented cases of misdiagnosis following PGT in this cohort. With these results, we aim to provide an overview of PGT for NF1 with regard to success rate and safety, to optimize reproductive counseling and PGT treatment for NF1 patients.

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

STUDY QUESTION: How should ART/preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) centres manage the detection of chromosomal mosaicism following PGT? SUMMARY ANSWER: Thirty good practice recommendations were formulated that can be used by ART/PGT centres as a basis for their own policy with regards to the management of 'mosaic' embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of comprehensive chromosome screening technologies has provided a variety of data on the incidence of chromosomal mosaicism at the preimplantation stage of development and evidence is accumulating that clarifies the clinical outcomes after transfer of embryos with putative mosaic results, with regards to implantation, miscarriage and live birth rates, and neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, a large survey evaluating current practice and published guidance documents. The literature search was performed using PubMed and focused on studies published between 2010 and 2022. The survey was performed through a web-based questionnaire distributed to members of the ESHRE special interest groups (SIG) Reproductive Genetics and Embryology, and the ESHRE PGT Consortium members. It included questions on ART and PGT, reporting, embryo transfer policy and follow-up of transfers. The final dataset represents 239 centres. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The working group (WG) included 16 members with expertise on the ART/PGT process and chromosomal mosaicism. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the WG, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Eighty percent of centres that biopsy three or more cells report mosaicism, even though only 66.9% of all centres have validated their technology and only 61.8% of these have validated specifically for the calling of chromosomal mosaicism. The criteria for designating mosaicism, reporting and transfer policies vary significantly across the centres replying to the survey. The WG formulated recommendations on how to manage the detection of chromosomal mosaicism in clinical practice, considering validation, risk assessment, designating and reporting mosaicism, embryo transfer policies, prenatal testing and follow-up. Guidance is also provided on the essential elements that should constitute the consent forms and the genetic report, and that should be covered in genetic counselling. As there are several unknowns in chromosomal mosaicism, it is recommended that PGT centres monitor emerging data on the topic and adapt or refine their policy whenever new insights are available from evidence. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Rather than providing instant standardized advice, the recommendations should help ART/PGT centres in developing their own policy towards the management of putative mosaic embryos in clinical practice. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This document will help facilitate a more knowledge-based approach for dealing with chromosomal mosaicism in different centres. In addition to recommendations for clinical practice, recommendations for future research were formulated. Following up on these will direct research towards existing research gaps with direct translation to clinical practice. Emerging data will help in improving guidance, and a more evidence-based approach of managing chromosomal mosaicism. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The WG received technical support from ESHRE. M.D.R. participated in the EQA special advisory group, outside the submitted work, and is the chair of the PGT WG of the Belgian society for human genetics. D.W. declared receiving salary from Juno Genetics, UK. A.C. is an employee of Igenomix, Italy and C.R. is an employee of Igenomix, Spain. C.S. received a research grant from FWO, Belgium, not related to the submitted work. I.S. declared being a Co-founder of IVFvision Ltd, UK. J.R.V. declared patents related to 'Methods for haplotyping single-cells' and 'Haplotyping and copy number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies', and being a board member of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS) and International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD). K.S. reported being Chair-elect of ESHRE. The other authors had nothing to disclose. DISCLAIMER: This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.  ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.  Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Liquid biopsy: state of reproductive medicine and beyond.

Liquid biopsy is the process of sampling and analyzing body fluids, which enables non-invasive monitoring of complex biological systems in vivo. Liquid biopsy has myriad applications in health and disease as a wide variety of components, ranging from circulating cells to cell-free nucleic acid molecules, can be analyzed. Here, we review different components of liquid biopsy, survey state-of-the-art, non-invasive methods for detecting those components, demonstrate their clinical applications and discuss ethical considerations. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of artificial intelligence in analyzing liquid biopsy data with the aim of developing ethically-responsible non-invasive technologies that can enhance individualized healthcare. While previous reviews have mainly focused on cancer, this review primarily highlights applications of liquid biopsy in reproductive medicine.

ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT.

The field of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is evolving fast, and best practice advice is essential for regulation and standardisation of diagnostic testing. The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary. The current updated version of the recommendations for good practice is, similar to the 2011 version, split into four documents, one of which covers the organisation of a PGT centre. The other documents focus on the different technical aspects of embryo biopsy, PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) and PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements/aneuploidies (PGT-SR/PGT-A). The current document outlines the steps prior to starting a PGT cycle, with details on patient inclusion and exclusion, and counselling and information provision. Also, recommendations are provided on the follow-up of PGT pregnancies and babies. Finally, some further recommendations are made on the practical organisation of an IVF/PGT centre, including basic requirements, transport PGT and quality management. This document, together with the documents on embryo biopsy, PGT-M and PGT-SR/PGT-A, should assist everyone interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.

ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations.

The field of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is evolving fast, and best practice advice is essential for regulation and standardisation of diagnostic testing. The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for PGD, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated, and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary. The current paper provides recommendations on the technical aspects of PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) and PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A) and covers recommendations on array-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for PGT-SR and PGT-A and on fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array for PGT-SR, including laboratory issues, work practice controls, pre-examination validation, preclinical work-up, risk assessment and limitations. Furthermore, some general recommendations on PGT-SR/PGT-A are formulated around training and general risk assessment, and the examination and post-examination process. This paper is one of a series of four papers on good practice recommendations on PGT. The other papers cover the organisation of a PGT centre, embryo biopsy and tubing and the technical aspects of PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M). Together, these papers should assist everyone interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.

Multi-centre evaluation of a comprehensive preimplantation genetic test through haplotyping-by-sequencing.

STUDY QUESTION: Can reduced representation genome sequencing offer an alternative to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays as a generic and genome-wide approach for comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), aneuploidy (PGT-A) and structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) in human embryo biopsy samples? SUMMARY ANSWER: Reduced representation genome sequencing, with OnePGT, offers a generic, next-generation sequencing-based approach for automated haplotyping and copy-number assessment, both combined or independently, in human single blastomere and trophectoderm samples. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Genome-wide haplotyping strategies, such as karyomapping and haplarithmisis, have paved the way for comprehensive PGT, i.e. leveraging PGT-M, PGT-A and PGT-SR in a single workflow. These methods are based upon SNP array technology. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multi-centre verification study evaluated the concordance of PGT results for a total of 225 embryos, including 189 originally tested for a monogenic disorder and 36 tested for a translocation. Concordance for whole chromosome aneuploidies was also evaluated where whole genome copy-number reference data were available. Data analysts were kept blind to the results from the reference PGT method. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Leftover blastomere/trophectoderm whole genome amplified (WGA) material was used, or secondary trophectoderm biopsies were WGA. A reduced representation library from WGA DNA together with bulk DNA from phasing references was processed across two study sites with the Agilent OnePGT solution. Libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq500 system, and data were analysed with Agilent Alissa OnePGT software. The embedded PGT-M pipeline utilises the principles of haplarithmisis to deduce haplotype inheritance whereas both the PGT-A and PGT-SR pipelines are based upon read-count analysis in order to evaluate embryonic ploidy. Concordance analysis was performed for both analysis strategies against the reference PGT method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: PGT-M analysis was performed on 189 samples. For nine samples, the data quality was too poor to analyse further, and for 20 samples, no result could be obtained mainly due to biological limitations of the haplotyping approach, such as co-localisation of meiotic crossover events and nullisomy for the chromosome of interest. For the remaining 160 samples, 100% concordance was obtained between OnePGT and the reference PGT-M method. Equally for PGT-SR, 100% concordance for all 36 embryos tested was demonstrated. Moreover, with embryos originally analysed for PGT-M or PGT-SR for which genome-wide copy-number reference data were available, 100% concordance was shown for whole chromosome copy-number calls (PGT-A). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Inherent to haplotyping methodologies, processing of additional family members is still required. Biological limitations caused inconclusive results in 10% of cases. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Employment of OnePGT for PGT-M, PGT-SR, PGT-A or combined as comprehensive PGT offers a scalable platform, which is inherently generic and thereby, eliminates the need for family-specific design and optimisation. It can be considered as both an improvement and complement to the current methodologies for PGT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Agilent Technologies, the KU Leuven (C1/018 to J.R.V. and T.V.) and the Horizon 2020 WIDENLIFE (692065 to J.R.V. and T.V). H.M. is supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, 11A7119N). M.Z.E, J.R.V. and T.V. are co-inventors on patent applications: ZL910050-PCT/EP2011/060211- WO/2011/157846 'Methods for haplotyping single cells' and ZL913096-PCT/EP2014/068315 'Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies'. T.V. and J.R.V. are co-inventors on patent application: ZL912076-PCT/EP2013/070858 'High-throughput genotyping by sequencing'. Haplarithmisis ('Haplotyping and copy-number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies') has been licensed to Agilent Technologies. The following patents are pending for OnePGT: US2016275239, AU2014345516, CA2928013, CN105874081, EP3066213 and WO2015067796. OnePGT is a registered trademark. D.L., J.T. and R.L.R. report personal fees during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. S.H. and K.O.F. report personal fees and other during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. J.A. reports personal fees and other during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees from Agilent Technologies and UZ Leuven outside the submitted work. B.D. reports grants from IWT/VLAIO, personal fees during the conduct of the study from Agilent Technologies and personal fees and other outside the submitted work from Agilent Technologies. In addition, B.D. has a patent 20160275239 - Genetic Analysis Method pending. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for mitochondrial DNA mutations: analysis of one blastomere suffices.

BACKGROUND: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a reproductive strategy for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutation carriers, strongly reducing their risk of affected offspring. Embryos either without the mutation or with mutation load below the phenotypic threshold are transferred to the uterus. Because of incidental heteroplasmy deviations in single blastomere and the relatively limited data available, we so far preferred relying on two blastomeres rather than one. Considering the negative effect of a two-blastomere biopsy protocol compared with a single-blastomere biopsy protocol on live birth delivery rate, we re-evaluated the error rate in our current dataset. METHODS: For the m.3243A>G mutation, sufficient embryos/blastomeres were available for a powerful analysis. The diagnostic error rate, defined as a potential false-negative result, based on a threshold of 15%, was determined in 294 single blastomeres analysed in 73 embryos of 9 female m.3243A>G mutation carriers. RESULTS: Only one out of 294 single blastomeres (0.34%) would have resulted in a false-negative diagnosis. False-positive diagnoses were not detected. CONCLUSION: Our findings support a single-blastomere biopsy PGD protocol for the m.3243A>G mutation as the diagnostic error rate is very low. As in the early preimplantation embryo no mtDNA replication seems to occur and the mtDNA is divided randomly among the daughter cells, we conclude this result to be independent of the specific mutation and therefore applicable to all mtDNA mutations.

The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists.

STUDY QUESTION: We wanted to probe the opinions and current practices on preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), and more specifically on PGS in its newest form: PGS 2.0? STUDY FINDING: Consensus is lacking on which patient groups, if any at all, can benefit from PGS 2.0 and, a fortiori, whether all IVF patients should be offered PGS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It is clear from all experts that PGS 2.0 can be defined as biopsy at the blastocyst stage followed by comprehensive chromosome screening and possibly combined with vitrification. Most agree that mosaicism is less of an issue at the blastocyst stage than at the cleavage stage but whether mosaicism is no issue at all at the blastocyst stage is currently called into question. STUDY DESIGN, SAMPLES/MATERIALS, METHODS: A questionnaire was developed on the three major aspects of PGS 2.0: the Why, with general questions such as PGS 2.0 indications; the How, specifically on genetic analysis methods; the When, on the ideal method and timing of embryo biopsy. Thirty-five colleagues have been selected to address these questions on the basis of their experience with PGS, and demonstrated by peer-reviewed publications, presentations at meetings and participation in the discussion. The first group of experts who were asked about 'The Why' comprised fertility experts, the second group of molecular biologists were asked about 'The How' and the third group of embryologists were asked about 'The When'. Furthermore, the geographical distribution of the experts has been taken into account. Thirty have filled in the questionnaire as well as actively participated in the redaction of the current paper. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 30 participants were from Europe (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK) and the USA. Array comparative genome hybridization is the most widely used method amongst the participants, but it is slowly being replaced by massive parallel sequencing. Most participants offering PGS 2.0 to their patients prefer blastocyst biopsy. The high efficiency of vitrification of blastocysts has added a layer of complexity to the discussion, and it is not clear whether PGS in combination with vitrification, PGS alone, or vitrification alone, followed by serial thawing and eSET will be the favoured approach. The opinions range from in favour of the introduction of PGS 2.0 for all IVF patients, over the proposal to use PGS as a tool to rank embryos according to their implantation potential, to scepticism towards PGS pending a positive outcome of robust, reliable and large-scale RCTs in distinct patient groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Care was taken to obtain a wide spectrum of views from carefully chosen experts. However, not all invited experts agreed to participate, which explains a lack of geographical coverage in some areas, for example China. This paper is a collation of current practices and opinions, and it was outside the scope of this study to bring a scientific, once-and-for-all solution to the ongoing debate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This paper is unique in that it brings together opinions on PGS 2.0 from all different perspectives and gives an overview of currently applied technologies as well as potential future developments. It will be a useful reference for fertility specialists with an expertise outside reproductive genetics. LARGE SCALE DATA: none. STUDY FUNDING AND COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was obtained to conduct this questionnaire.

Age of G-1 PLUS v5 embryo culture medium is inversely associated with birthweight of the newborn.

STUDY QUESTION: Does age of G-1 PLUS v5 embryo culture medium affect IVF outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: Birthweight of singletons born after IVF showed an inverse association with age of the embryo culture medium, while no association was found between age of culture medium and fertilization rate, embryonic development or ongoing pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It has been reported that IVF culture media can deteriorate during storage, which suggests that the capacity of culture media to support optimal embryo development decreases over time. Some animal studies showed an effect of storage time on embryo development, in contrast to other studies, while the effect of aging culture medium on IVF outcome in humans is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We used data on outcome of 1832 IVF/ICSI cycles with fresh embryo transfer, performed in the period 2008-2012 to evaluate the association of fertilization rate, embryonic development, ongoing pregnancy and birthweight of singletons with age of the culture medium (Vitrolife AB G-1 PLUS v5). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Age of the culture medium was calculated by subtracting the production date from the date of ovum retrieval. Data analysis included linear regression and logistic regression on continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Age of the culture medium was not associated with fertilization rate (P = 0.543), early cleavage rate (P = 0.155), percentage of embryos containing four or more cells on Day 2 (P = 0.401), percentage of embryos containing eight or more cells on Day 3 (P = 0.175), percentage of embryos with multinucleated blastomeres (P = 0.527), or ongoing pregnancy (P = 0.729). However, birthweight of the newborn was inversely associated with age of the medium (ß = -3.6 g, SE: 1.5 g, P = 0.021), after controlling for possible confounders (day of embryo transfer, number of transferred embryos, child's gender, gestational age at birth, parity, pregnancy complications, maternal smoking, height and weight, and paternal height and weight) and the association was not biased by year of treatment, time since first opening of the bottle or batch variations. This indicates a difference of 234 g in birthweight of newborns for media with an age difference of 65 days. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results from this study may be specific for the G-1 PLUS v5 culture medium and extrapolation of the results to other media should be done with caution because of the differences in composition and shelf life. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Age of G-1 PLUS v5 medium used to culture human embryos affects birthweight of the respective newborn. This could imply that the preimplantation embryo adapts to its in vitro environment with lasting in vivo consequences. Therefore, it is important that companies are transparent about the exact composition of their embryo culture media, which will allow IVF clinics to further investigate the effects of the media or media components on the health of IVF children. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding and no competing interests declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

PGD for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: the route to universal tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is a method of testing in vitro embryos as an alternative to prenatal diagnosis with possible termination of pregnancy in case of an affected child. Recently, PGD for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer caused by BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations has found its way in specialized labs. We describe the route to universal single-cell PGD tests for carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. Originally, mutation-specific protocols with one or two markers were set up and changed when new couples were not informative. This route of changing protocols was finalized after 2 years with universal tests for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers based on haplotyping of, respectively, 6 (BRCA1) and 8 (BRCA2) microsatellite markers in a multiplex PCR. Using all protocols, 30 couples had a total of 47 PGD cycles performed. Eight cycles were cancelled upon IVF treatment due to hypostimulation. Of the remaining 39 cycles, a total of 261 embryos were biopsied and a genetic diagnosis was obtained in 244 (93%). In 34 of the 39 cycles (84.6%), an embryo transfer was possible and resulted in 8 pregnancies leading to a fetal heart beat per oocyte retrieval of 20.5% and a fetal heart beat per embryonic transfer of 23.5%. The preparation time and costs for set-up and validation of tests are minimized. The informativity of microsatellite markers used in the universal PGD-PCR tests is based on CEPH and deCODE pedigrees, making the tests applicable in 90% of couples coming from these populations.

What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee.

Since 2004, there have been 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) mainly for advanced maternal age (AMA), which have shown no benefit of performing preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Ten of the RCTs have been performed at the cleavage stage and one at the blastocyst stage. It is probable that the high levels of chromosomal mosaicism at cleavage stages, which may result in the tested cell not being representative of the embryo, and the inability to examine all of the chromosomes using fluorescence in situ hybridization, have contributed to the lack of positive outcome from the RCTs. We suggest that future RCTs should examine alternative biopsy timing (polar body and/or trophectoderm biopsy), and should apply technologies that allow more comprehensive testing to include all chromosomes (microarray-based testing) to determine if PGS shows an improvement in delivery rate. Currently there is no evidence that routine PGS is beneficial for patients with AMA and conclusive data (RCTs) on repeated miscarriage, implantation failure and severe male factor are missing. To evaluate benefits of PGS, an ESHRE trial has recently been started on patients with AMA using polar body biopsy and array-comparative genomic hybridization, which should bring more information on this patient group in the near future.