Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26637492›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2016

Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies.

Antonio Capalbo, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Danilo Cimadomo, Roberta Maggiulli, Cristina Patassini, Ludovica Dusi, Federica Sanges, Laura Buffo, Roberta Venturella, Laura Rienzi

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The number of biopsied trophectoderm cells may affect pregnancy outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Embryo Biopsy.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Antonio CapalboGENERA Roma, Clinica Valle Giulia, Roma, Italy GENETYX, Molecular Genetics Laboratory, Marostica, Vicenza, Italy capalbo@generaroma.it.
Filippo Maria UbaldiGENERA Roma, Clinica Valle Giulia, Roma, Italy GENERA Marostica, Poliambulatorio SALUS, Marostica, Italy GENERA Napoli, Clinica Ruesch, Napoli, Italy.
Danilo CimadomoGENERA Roma, Clinica Valle Giulia, Roma, Italy GENETYX, Molecular Genetics Laboratory, Marostica, Vicenza, Italy.
Roberta MaggiulliGENERA Roma, Clinica Valle Giulia, Roma, Italy.
Cristina PatassiniGENETYX, Molecular Genetics Laboratory, Marostica, Vicenza, Italy.
Ludovica DusiGENERA Marostica, Poliambulatorio SALUS, Marostica, Italy.
Federica SangesGENERA Napoli, Clinica Ruesch, Napoli, Italy.
Laura BuffoGENERA Marostica, Poliambulatorio SALUS, Marostica, Italy.
Roberta VenturellaGENERA Napoli, Clinica Ruesch, Napoli, Italy.
Laura RienziGENERA Roma, Clinica Valle Giulia, Roma, Italy GENERA Marostica, Poliambulatorio SALUS, Marostica, Italy GENERA Napoli, Clinica Ruesch, Napoli, Italy.
Clinica Valle Giulia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionIs blastocyst biopsy and quantitative real-time PCR based comprehensive chromosome screening a consistent and reproducible approach across different biopsy practitioners? SUMMARY ANSWER: The blastocyst biopsy approach provides highly consistent and reproducible laboratory and clinical outcomes across multiple practitioners from different IVF centres when all of the embryologists received identical training and use similar equipment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recently there has been a trend towards trophectoderm (TE) biopsy in preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)/preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) programmes. However, there is still a lack of knowledge about the reproducibility that can be obtained from multiple biopsy practitioners in different IVF centres in relation also to blastocysts of different morphology. Although it has been demonstrated that biopsy at the blastocyst stage has no impact on embryo viability, it remains a possibility that less experienced individual biopsy practitioners or laboratories performing TE biopsy may affect certain outcomes. We investigated whether TE biopsy practitioners can have an impact on the quality of the genetic test and the subsequent clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This longitudinal cohort study, between April 2013 and December 2014, involved 2586 consecutive blastocyst biopsies performed at three different IVF centres and the analysis of 494 single frozen euploid embryo transfer cycles (FEET). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsSeven biopsy practitioners performed the blastocyst biopsies in the study period and quantitative PCR was used for comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS). The same practitioner performed both the biopsy and tubing procedures for each blastocyst they biopsied. To investigate the quality of the biopsied samples, the diagnostic rate, sample-specific concurrence and the cell number retrieved in the biopsy were evaluated for each biopsy operator. Clinical outcomes following FEET cycles were stratified by biopsy operator and compared. Cellularity of the biopsy sample was also correlated with clinical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The seven practitioners performed 2586 biopsies, five in centre IVF-1 and one in each of the other two IVF centres (IVF-2 and IVF-3). Overall, 2437 out of 2586 (94.2%) blastocyst biopsies resulted in a conclusive diagnosis, 119 (4.6%) showed a nonconcurrent result and 30 (1.2%) failed to amplify, suggesting the absence of TE cells in the test tube or presence of degenerated/lysed cells only. Among the samples producing a conclusive diagnosis, a mean concurrence value of 0.253 (95% CI = 0.250-0.257) was observed. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors showed no differences in the diagnosis rate and in the concurrence of the genetic analysis between different biopsy practitioners. An overall mean number of 7.32 cells (95% CI = 6.82-7.81; range 2-15) were predicted from all biopsies. Higher cellularity was significantly associated with a better quality of the CCS diagnosis (P < 0.01) and with the conclusive diagnosis rate, with nonconcurrent samples showing significantly lower numbers of cells (2.1; 95% CI=1.5-2.7) compared with samples resulting in a conclusive diagnosis (mean cells number 7.5; 95% CI = 7.1-7.9, P < 0.01). However, no differences were recorded between different biopsy practitioners regarding cellularity of the biopsy. Finally, logistic analysis showed no impact of the biopsy practitioners on the observed ongoing rates of implantation, biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage after the FEET cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: These data come from a restricted set of laboratories where all of the embryologists received identical training and use identical equipment. A single TE biopsy method and CCS technology was used and these data particularly apply to PGS programmes using blastocyst biopsy without zona opening at the cleavage stage and using qPCR-based CCS. To make firm conclusions on the potential impact of biopsy on biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriages according to practitioner and biopsy cellularity, a larger sample size is needed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsWe reported a very high consistency and reproducibility of the blastocyst biopsy approach coupled with qPCR-based CSS for both genetic and clinical outcomes across different practitioners working in different IVF centres when appropriate training is provided and when the same laboratory setting is used. These data are important considering the trend towards the use of blastocyst biopsy worldwide for PGD/PGS applications. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None.

Indexed as

AneuploidyBlastocystAdultBiopsyEmbryo Culture TechniquesFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansItalyLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of Resultsaneuploidiesblastocyst biopsyblastocyst evaluationembryo selectionpreimplantation genetic screening

Identifiers

PMID26637492
PMCPMC4677968
OpenAlexW2271097746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.