Preimplantation genetic testing for more than one genetic condition: clinical and ethical considerations and dilemmas.

STUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and ethical aspects of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements (PGT-M, PGT-SR) should be considered when accepting requests and counselling couples for PGT when applied for more than one condition (combination-PGT; cPGT-M/SR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: cPGT is a feasible extension of the practice of PGT-M/SR that may require adapting the criteria many countries have in place with regard to indications-setting for PGT-M/SR, while leading to complex choices that require timely counselling and information. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although PGT-M/SR is usually performed to prevent transmission of one disorder, requests for PGT-M/SR for more than one condition (cPGT-M/SR) are becoming less exceptional. However, knowledge about implications for a responsible application of such treatments is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective review of all (40) PGT-M/SR applications concerning more than one genetic condition over the period 1995-2018 in the files of the Dutch national PGT centre. This comprises all relevant national data since the start of PGT in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: Data regarding cPGT-M/SR cases were collected by means of reviewing medical files of couples applying for cPGT-M/SR. Ethical challenges arising with cPGT-M/SR were explored against the background of PGT-M/SR regulations in several European countries, as well as of relevant ESHRE-guidance regarding both indications-setting and transfer-decisions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We report 40 couples applying for cPGT-M/SR of which 16 couples started their IVF treatment. Together they underwent 39 IVF cycles leading to the birth of five healthy children. Of the couples applying for cPGT, 45% differentiated between a primary and secondary condition in terms of perceived severity. In the light of an altered balance of benefits and drawbacks, we argue the 'high risk of a serious condition' standard that many countries uphold as governing indications-setting, should be lowered for secondary conditions in couples who already have an indication for PGT-M/SR. As a consequence of cPGT, professionals will more often be confronted with requests for transferring embryos known to be affected with a condition that they were tested for. In line with ESHRE guidance, such transfers may well be acceptable, on the condition of avoiding a high risk of a child with a seriously diminished quality of life. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We are the first to give an overview of cPGT-M/SR treatments. Retrospective analysis was performed using national data, possibly not reflecting current trends worldwide. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our observations have led to recommendations for cPGT-M/SR that may add to centre policy making and to the formulation of professional guidelines. Given that the introduction of generic methods for genomic analysis in PGT will regularly yield incidental findings leading to transfer requests with these same challenges, the importance of our discussion exceeds the present discussion of cPGT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The research for this publication was funded by the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), project number: 141111002 (Long term safety, quality and ethics of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis). None of the authors has any competing interests to declare.

BRCA1 mutation carriers have a lower number of mature oocytes after ovarian stimulation for IVF/PGD.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether BRCA1/2 mutation carriers produce fewer mature oocytes after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in comparison to a PGD control group. METHODS: A retrospective, international, multicenter cohort study was performed on data of first PGD cycles performed between January 2006 and September 2015. Data were extracted from medical files. The study was performed in one PGD center and three affiliated IVF centers in the Netherlands and one PGD center in Belgium. Exposed couples underwent PGD because of a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation, controls for other monogenic conditions. Only couples treated in a long gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist-suppressive protocol, stimulated with at least 150 IU follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), were included. Women suspected to have a diminished ovarian reserve status due to chemotherapy, auto-immune disorders, or genetic conditions (other than BRCA1/2 mutations) were excluded. A total of 106 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers underwent PGD in this period, of which 43 (20 BRCA1 and 23 BRCA2 mutation carriers) met the inclusion criteria. They were compared to 174 controls selected by frequency matching. RESULTS: Thirty-eight BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (18 BRCA1 and 20 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and 154 controls proceeded to oocyte pickup. The median number of mature oocytes was 7.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-9.0) in the BRCA group as a whole, 6.5 (IQR 4.0-8.0) in BRCA1 mutation carriers, 7.5 (IQR 5.5-9.0) in BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 8.0 (IQR 6.0-11.0) in controls. Multiple linear regression analysis with the number of mature oocytes as a dependent variable and adjustment for treatment center, female age, female body mass index (BMI), type of gonadotropin used, and the total dose of gonadotropins administered revealed a significantly lower yield of mature oocytes in the BRCA group as compared to controls (p = 0.04). This finding could be fully accounted for by the BRCA1 subgroup (BRCA1 mutation carriers versus controls p = 0.02, BRCA2 mutation carriers versus controls p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian response to stimulation, expressed as the number of mature oocytes, was reduced in BRCA1 but not in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Although oocyte yield was in correspondence to a normal response in all subgroups, this finding points to a possible negative influence of the BRCA1 gene on ovarian reserve.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of spinocerebellar ataxia 3 by (CAG)(n) repeat detection.

Spinocerebellar ataxia 3 (SCA3) is an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative disorder characterized by variable expression and a variable age of onset. SCA3/MJD (Machado-Joseph disease) is caused by an expansion of a (CAG)(n) repeat in the MJD1 gene on chromosome 14q32.1. A single cell PCR protocol has been developed for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of SCA3 to select unaffected embryos on the basis of the CAG genotype. Single leukocytes and blastomeres served as a single cell amplification test system to determine the percentage of allelic drop-out (ADO) and PCR efficiency. Out of 105 tested heterozygous single leukocytes, 103 (98.1%) showed a positive amplification signal, while five cells (4.9%) showed ADO. Amplification in single blastomeres was obtained in 13 out of a total of 14, and ADO was observed in two out of the 13 single blastomeres. PGD of SCA3 was performed in a couple with paternal transmission of the SCA3 allele. Seven embryos were available for biopsy, all biopsied blastomeres showed amplification and no ADO occurred. One embryo was diagnosed as affected whereas six embryos were diagnosed as unaffected. Two unaffected embryos were transferred and resulted in a singleton pregnancy and the birth of a healthy girl.

[Results from 10 years of preimplantation-genetic diagnostics in The Netherlands]. / Resultaten van 10 jaar preimplantatiegenetische diagnostiek in Nederland.

OBJECTIVE: To report the data from couples who were referred for preimplantation-genetic diagnostics (PGD) and treatment due to a significantly increased risk of offspring with a serious genetic disorder. DESIGN: Descriptive, prospective. METHOD: Data were collected from couples that underwent PGD in the period 1993/'03 at Maastricht University Hospital. Embryos produced by means of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) were subjected to genetic tests several days after fertilisation. Subsequently 1 or 2 unaffected embryos were transferred to the uterus. Where there was an increased risk of a male with an X-linked genetic disorder, the gender was determined using fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH). This method was also used to detect structural chromosomal abnormalities. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method was used for mutation detection and/or marker analysis of monogenetic disorders. RESULTS: A total of 691 couples were referred for PGD. The most frequent indications were X-linked disorders (30%), in particular Fragile-X syndrome, Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy and haemophilia A/B. This was followed by autosomal dominant disorders (26%), such as Huntington's disease and myotonic dystrophy, and then structural chromosomal abnormalities (24%). A total of 120 women underwent 260 PGD cycles. An embryo transfer was possible in 158 of the cycles and this resulted in 45 successful pregnancies. The pregnancy rate was 17% per cycle initiated and 28% per cycle with embryo transfer. Up until december 2003 29 singletons, 8 sets of twins and 1 set of triplets were born. There were no misdiagnoses and none of the babies had congenital abnormalities. CONCLUSION: PGD was a reliable and successful method, with pregnancy rates similar to those of IVF or intracytoplasmatic sperm injection. PGD should be stated as an alternative during the preconception counselling of couples with an increased genetic risk, especially for disorders where PGD can be routinely applied, such as Huntington's disease, myotonic dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, Fragile-X syndrome and structural chromosomal abnormalities.