Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31114858›Full record

Observational studyHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2019

The clinicians´ dilemma with mosaicism-an insight from inner cell mass biopsies.

B Lawrenz, I El Khatib, A Liñán, A Bayram, A Arnanz, R Chopra, N De Munck, H M Fatemi

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. PGT-A: who and when? Α systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. PGT-A: what's it for, what's wrong?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Embryo Culture Medium Has No Impact on Mosaicism Rates: a Sibling Oocyte Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

B LawrenzIVF Department, IVIRMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
I El KhatibIVF Laboratory, IVIRMA Middle-East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
A LiñánIVF Laboratory, IVIRMA Middle-East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
A BayramIVF Laboratory, IVIRMA Middle-East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
A ArnanzIVF Laboratory, IVIRMA Middle-East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
R ChopraIgenomix, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
N De MunckIVF Laboratory, IVIRMA Middle-East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
H M FatemiIVF Department, IVIRMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionHow reliable are cleavage stage and trophectoderm (TE) biopsies compared to inner cell mass (ICM) biopsies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The reliability of TE biopsy compared to ICM biopsy is almost perfect, but only substantial between cleavage stage biopsy and ICM biopsy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: One of the prevailing reasons for implantation failure is presumed to be chromosomal aneuploidy in human preimplantation embryos. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) has been introduced into assisted reproduction in an effort to increase pregnancy rates. Increasing evidence indicates that genetic results obtained following blastomere or TEbiopsy may not accurately reflect the true genetic status of the embryo due to the presence of embryonic mosaicism, and therefore the reliability of PGT is highly controversial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was an observational descriptive study, performed in a private infertility centre from August 2016 to January 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsThe mean female age was 33.9 years, ranging from 24 to 46 years, and the mean number of biopsied embryos per couple was 2.2 (range 1-7 embryos). Blastomere biopsies had been performed at cleavage stage on Day 3 (D3) due to the turnover time of genetic testing and the inability to cryopreserve embryos in accordance with the local law governing ART. To confirm the genetic results in embryos not chosen for transfer, additional biopsies of the TE at blastocyst stage (BLASTO-TE) as well as of the ICM (BLASTO-ICM) were performed on D5. Only surplus blastocysts, which had not been selected for transfer and were not cryopreserved in accordance with the law governing ART, had been included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Comparison of all biopsies (D3/BLASTO-ICM/BLASTO-TE) per embryo demonstrated that 50 (59.5%) out of 84 embryos showed concordance in all three results (= full concordance). Thirty-four (40.4%) embryos had at least two discordant results between the three biopsies, regardless of whether the embryo diagnosis (aneuploid/euploid) was discordant or not, or in aneuploid embryos, whether the chromosomal patterns were inconsistent. Nine (= 10.7%) embryos had complete discordance between all three biopsies. False positive results between D3/BLASTO-TE, D3/BLASTO-ICM and BLASTO-TE/BLASTO-ICM were 26.4%/30.2% and 7.5%, respectively, while the Kappa agreement between the different approaches was 0.647, 0.553 and 0.857, respectively. Therefore the reliability of D3/BLASTO-TE, D3/BLASTO-ICM and BLASTO-TE/BLASTO-ICM can be interpreted as substantial, as moderate and as almost perfect. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The limitation of this study is the possible bias in the concordance/discordance rate because embryos that had been selected for transfer did not undergo biopsy on D5. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe obvious discordance between the three different approaches for PGT-A underlines the limitations of genetic testing and highlights the importance of ongoing research in order to improve the accuracy of PGT-A results. Until then reproductive specialists will continue to make challenging decisions on whether to transfer or discard an embryo in light of current evidence questioning the reliability of genetic results. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Igenomix. The funder provided support in the form of salary for R.C. The co-author R.C. is an employee of Igenomix. She participated in the blinded analysis of the samples; however the final data collection and statistical analysis of the results, as well as the decision to publish, was taken by B.L, I.E. and H.F. The authors B.L., I.E., A.L., A.B., A.A., N.D. and H.F. have no competing interests. The funder did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The commercial affiliation of R.C. did not play any role in the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of IVIRMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE (Research Ethics Committee IVI-MEREFA009a/2017).

Indexed as

MosaicismAdultBiopsyBlastocyst Inner Cell MassEmbryo ImplantationEmbryo TransferFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInfertilityMiddle AgedPregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisReproducibility of ResultsTime-to-PregnancyTrophoblastscleavage stage biopsyinner cell mass biopsypreimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidyreliabilitytrophectoderm biopsy

Identifiers

PMID31114858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.