ART in Europe, 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHRE†.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the data and trends on ART and IUI cycle numbers and their outcomes, and on fertility preservation (FP) interventions, reported in 2019 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 23rd ESHRE report highlights the rising ART treatment cycles and children born, alongside a decline in twin deliveries owing to decreasing multiple embryo transfers; fresh IVF or ICSI cycles exhibited higher delivery rates, whereas frozen embryo transfers (FET) showed higher pregnancy rates (PRs), and reported IUI cycles decreased while maintaining stable outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics, or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium since 1997 and reported in a total of 22 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Data on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) from European countries are collected by EIM for ESHRE each year. The data on treatment cycles performed between 1 January and 31 December 2019 were provided by either national registries or registries based on initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations or committed persons in one of the 44 countries that are members of the EIM Consortium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 1487 clinics offering ART services in 40 countries reported, for the second time, a total of more than 1 million (1 077 813) treatment cycles, including 160 782 with IVF, 427 980 with ICSI, 335 744 with FET, 64 089 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 82 373 with egg donation (ED), 546 with IVM of oocytes, and 6299 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1169 institutions reported data on IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 147 711) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 651) in 33 and 24 countries, respectively. Eighteen countries reported 24 139 interventions in pre- and post-pubertal patients for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen, and testicular tissue banking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 21 countries (21 in 2018) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry 476 760 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 300 million inhabitants, allowing the best estimate of a mean of 1581 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 437-3621). Among the reporting countries, for IVF the clinical PRs per aspiration slightly decreased while they remained similar per transfer compared to 2018 (21.8% and 34.6% versus 25.5% and 34.1%, respectively). In ICSI, the corresponding PRs showed similar trends compared to 2018 (20.2% and 33.5%, versus 22.5% and 32.1%) When freeze-all cycles were not considered for the calculations, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 28.5% (28.8% in 2018) and 26.2% (27.3% in 2018) for IVF and ICSI, respectively. After FET with embryos originating from own eggs, the PR per thawing was at 35.1% (versus 33.4% in 2018), and with embryos originating from donated eggs at 43.0% (41.8% in 2018). After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 50.5% (49.6% in 2018) and per FOR 44.8% (44.9% in 2018). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend toward the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 embryos in 55.4%, 39.9%, 2.6%, and 0.2% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 50.7%, 45.1%, 3.9%, and 0.3% in 2018). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin delivery rates (DRs) of 11.9% (12.4% in 2018) and a similar triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FET in 2019 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 8.9% and 0.1%, respectively (versus 9.4% and 0.1% in 2018). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.8% in 2018) and at 12.1% after IUI-D (12.6% in 2018). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.7% and 0.4% (in 2018: 8.4% and 0.3%) and 6.2% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2018: 6.4% and 0.2%), respectively. Eighteen countries (16 in 2018) provided data on FP in a total number of 24 139 interventions (20 994 in 2018). Cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 592 versus n = 10 503 in 2018) and cryopreservation of oocytes (n = 10 784 versus n = 9123 in 2018) were most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Caution with the interpretation of results should remain as data collection systems and completeness of reporting vary among European countries. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and/or deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 23rd ESHRE data collection on ART, IUI, and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Although it is the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, further efforts toward optimization of both the collection and the reporting, from the perspective of improving surveillance and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine, are awaited. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

EuMAR: a roadmap towards a prospective, cycle-by-cycle registry of medically assisted reproduction in Europe.

More than 20 years ago, the survey of activities in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) was initiated in Europe and resulted in cross-sectional annual reports, as issued by the European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium of ESHRE. Over time, these reports mirror the continuous development of the technologies and contribute to increased transparency and surveillance of reproductive care. Meanwhile, progressive changes of existing treatment modalities and the introduction of new technologies resulted in the need of a cumulative approach in the assessment of treatment outcomes, which warrants a prospective cycle-by-cycle data registry on MAR activities, including fertility preservation. This change in the paradigm of data collection in Europe towards the construction of cumulative outcome results is expected to generate additional insights into cross-institutional but also cross-border movements of patients and reproductive material. This is essential to improve vigilance and surveillance. The European monitoring of Medically Assisted Reproduction (EuMAR) project, co-funded by the European Union, will establish a registry for the transnational collection of prospective cycle-by-cycle MAR and fertility preservation data on the basis of an individual reproductive care code (IRCC). The rationale for the project and the objectives are presented here.

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.

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.

ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of monogenic disorders.

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 monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) and covers recommendations on basic methods for PGT-M and testing strategies. Furthermore, some specific recommendations are formulated for special cases, including de novo pathogenic variants, consanguineous couples, HLA typing, exclusion testing and disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the mitochondrial DNA. 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 chromosomal structural rearrangements/aneuploidies. Together, these papers should assist scientists interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) by comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) of the first and second polar body to select embryos for transfer increase the likelihood of a live birth within 1 year in advanced maternal age women aged 36-40 years planning an ICSI cycle, compared to ICSI without chromosome analysis? SUMMARY ANSWER: PGT-A by CCS in the first and second polar body to select euploid embryos for transfer does not substantially increase the live birth rate in women aged 36-40 years. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT-A has been used widely to select embryos for transfer in ICSI treatment, with the aim of improving treatment effectiveness. Whether PGT-A improves ICSI outcomes and is beneficial to the patients has remained controversial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a multinational, multicentre, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Of 396 women enroled between June 2012 and December 2016, 205 were allocated to CCS of the first and second polar body (study group) as part of their ICSI treatment cycle and 191 were allocated to ICSI treatment without chromosome screening (control group). Block randomization was performed stratified for centre and age group. Participants and clinicians were blinded at the time of enrolment until the day after intervention. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile couples in which the female partner was 36-40 years old and who were scheduled to undergo ICSI treatment were eligible. In those assigned to PGT-A, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis of the first and second polar bodies of the fertilized oocytes was performed using the 24sure array of Illumina. If in the first treatment cycle all oocytes were aneuploid, a second treatment with PB array CGH was offered. Participants in the control arm were planned for ICSI without PGT-A. Main exclusion criteria were three or more previous unsuccessful IVF or ICSI cycles, three or more clinical miscarriages, poor response or low ovarian reserve. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate after fresh or frozen embryo transfer recorded over 1 year after the start of the intervention. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 205 participants in the chromosome screening group, 50 (24%) had a live birth with intervention within 1 year, compared to 45 of the 191 in the group without intervention (24%), a difference of 0.83% (95% CI: -7.60 to 9.18%). There were significantly fewer participants in the chromosome screening group with a transfer (relative risk (RR) = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.89) and fewer with a miscarriage (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.90). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The targeted sample size was not reached because of suboptimal recruitment; however, the included sample allowed a 90% power to detect the targeted increase. Cumulative outcome data were limited to 1 year. Only 11 patients out of 32 with exclusively aneuploid results underwent a second treatment cycle in the chromosome screening group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The observation that the similarity in birth rates was achieved with fewer transfers, less cryopreservation and fewer miscarriages points to a clinical benefit of PGT-A, and this form of embryo selection may, therefore, be considered to minimize the number of interventions while producing comparable outcomes. Whether these benefits outweigh drawbacks such as the cost for the patient, the higher workload for the IVF lab and the potential effect on the children born after prolonged culture and/or cryopreservation remains to be shown. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Illumina provided microarrays and other consumables necessary for aCGH testing of polar bodies. M.B.'s institution (UZBrussel) has received educational grants from IBSA, Ferring, Organon, Schering-Plough, Merck and Merck Belgium. M.B. has received consultancy and speakers' fees from Organon, Serono Symposia and Merck. G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, IBSA, Glycotope, Abbott and Gedeon-Richter as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, BioSilu and ZIVA. W.V., C.S., P.M.B., V.G., G.A., M.D., T.E.G., L.G., G.Ka., G.Ko., J.L., M.C.M., M.P., A.S., M.T., K.V., J.G. and K.S. declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01532284. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 25 June 2012.

The experience of 3 years of external quality assessment of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was first performed over 20 years ago and has become an accepted part of genetic testing and assisted reproduction worldwide. The techniques and protocols necessary to carry out genetic testing at the single-cell level can be difficult to master and have been developed independently by the laboratories worldwide offering preimplantation testing. These factors indicated the need for an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for monogenic disease PGD. Toward this end, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology came together with United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Services for Molecular Genetics, to create a pilot EQA scheme followed by practical EQA schemes for all interested parties. Here, we detail the development of the pilot scheme as well as development and findings from the practical (clinical) schemes that have followed. Results were generally acceptable and there was marked improvement in results and laboratory scores for those labs that participated in multiple schemes. Data from the first three schemes indicate that the EQA scheme is working as planned and has helped laboratories improve their techniques and result reporting. The EQA scheme for monogenic PGD will continue to be developed to offer assessment for other monogenic disorders.

Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials have not shown a benefit from preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) biopsy of cleavage-stage embryos and assessment of up to 10 chromosomes for aneuploidy. Therefore, a proof-of-principle study was planned to determine the reliability of alternative form of PGS, i.e. PGS by polar body (PB) biopsy, with whole genome amplification and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) analysis. METHODS: In two centres, all mature metaphase II oocytes from patients who consented to the study were fertilized by ICSI. The first and second PBs (PB1and PB2) were biopsied and analysed separately for chromosome copy number by array CGH. If either or both of the PBs were found to be aneuploid, the corresponding zygote was then also processed by array CGH for concordance analysis. RESULTS: Both PBs were biopsied from a total of 226 zygotes from 42 cycles (average 5.5 per cycle; range 1-15) in 41 couples with an average maternal age of 40.0 years. Of these, the ploidy status of the zygote could be predicted in 195 (86%): 55 were euploid (28%) and 140 were aneuploid (72%). With only one exception, there was at least one predicted aneuploid zygote in each cycle and in 19 out of 42 cycles (45%), all zygotes were predicted to be aneuploid. Fresh embryos were transferred in the remaining 23 cycles (55%), and one frozen transfer was done. Eight patients had a clinical pregnancy of which seven were evolutive (ongoing pregnancy rates: 17% per cycle and 30% per transfer). The ploidy status of 156 zygotes was successfully analysed by array CGH: 38 (24%) were euploid and 118 (76%) were aneuploid. In 138 cases complete information was available on both PBs and the corresponding zygotes. In 130 (94%), the ploidy status of the zygote was concordant with the ploidy status of the PBs and in 8 (6%), the results were discordant. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-principle study indicates that the ploidy of the zygote can be predicted with acceptable accuracy by array CGH analysis of both PBs.

Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the technical aspects related to polar body (PB) biopsy, which might have an influence on the results of the microarray comparative genomic hybridization analysis. Furthermore, a comparison was made between two biopsy methods (mechanical and laser). METHODS: Biopsy of the first and second PB (PB1 and PB2) was performed by mechanical- or laser-assisted biopsy in two different IVF centres. PBs were separately amplified by whole genome amplification. RESULTS: The method of biopsy, mechanical or laser had no influence on the proportion of successfully biopsied oocytes. Especially, for the PB2, the timing of biopsy after ICSI was directly correlated to amplification efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Special care has to be taken with respect to the timing of biopsy of the PB2. Mechanical- and laser-assisted biopsy give the same performance in terms of diagnostic efficiency.

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.

What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!

Screening of human preimplantation embryos for numerical chromosome abnormalities has been conducted mostly at the preimplantation stage using fluorescence in situ hybridization. However, it is clear that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) as it is currently practiced does not improve live birth rates. Therefore the ESHRE PGS Task Force has decided to start a proof of principle study with the aim of determining whether biopsy of the first and second polar body followed by subsequent analysis of the complete chromosome complement of these polar bodies using an array based technique enables a timely identification of the chromosomal status of an oocyte. If the principle of this approach can be proven, it is obvious that a multicentre randomized controlled trial should then be started to determine the clinical value of this technique. In this way the ESHRE PGS Task Force hopes to redirect preimplantation screening from the blind alley to the main road of assisted reproduction.

Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis or screening (PGD, PGS) involves embryo biopsy on Day 3. Opting for one- or two-cell biopsy is a balance between the lowest risk for misdiagnosis on the one hand and the highest chance for a pregnancy on the other hand. METHODS: A prospective controlled trial was designed and 592 ICSI cycles were randomly assigned to the one-cell (group I) or the two-cell group (group II). Primary outcomes were diagnostic efficiency and embryonic development to delivery with live birth (analysed by cycle). The false-positive rate for the PCR cycles is presented as a secondary outcome (analysed by embryo). RESULTS: A strong significant correlation was observed between embryonic developmental stage on Day 3 and post-biopsy in vitro development on Day 5 (P < 0.0001). The influence of the intervention on Day 3 was less significant (P = 0.007): the biopsy of one cell is less invasive than the biopsy of two cells. PCR diagnostic efficiency was 88.6% in group I and 96.4% in group II (P = 0.008). For the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) PGD cycles no significant difference in efficiency was obtained (98.2 and 97.5% in group I and II, respectively). Similar delivery rates with live birth per started cycle were obtained [58/287 or 20.2% in group I versus 52/303 or 17.2% in group II, P = 0.358; the absolute risk reduction = 3.05%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.24, 9.34]. Post-PGD PCR reanalysis showed six false positives in 97 embryos (6.2%) in group II and none in group I (91 embryos reanalysed). No false negatives were found. CONCLUSIONS: While removal of two blastomeres decreases the likelihood of blastocyst formation, compared with removal of one blastomere, Day 3 in vitro developmental stage is a stronger predictor for Day 5 developmental potential than the removal of one or two cells. The biopsy of only one cell significantly lowers the efficiency of a PCR-based diagnosis, whereas the efficiency of the FISH PGD procedure remains similar whether one or two cells are removed. Delivery rates with live birth per started cycle were not significantly different.

Clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis: the Brussels' experience.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is an alternative for prenatal diagnosis that makes it possible to perform the diagnosis of a chromosomal or monogenic disorder at the preimplantation embryo level. Cystic fibrosis is one of the monogenic diseases for which PGD can be performed. In this study, we looked at the requests and PGD cycles for this particular disorder over an 11-year period. Sixty-eight percent of the requests eventually led to at least one complete PGD cycle. In 80% of the cycles, an embryo transfer was performed and an ongoing pregnancy was obtained in 22.2% of the cycles with oocyte retrieval. After embryo transfer, a couple had 27.8% chance of giving birth to a liveborn child. No misdiagnosis was recorded. The rate of perinatal deaths/stillborn children was relatively high, but no excess of major congenital anomalies was observed in the surviving children.