Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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 The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for PGD, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated, and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary.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.

SUBMITTER: ESHRE PGT-SR/PGT-A Working Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7257111 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Coonen Edith E Rubio Carmen C Christopikou Dimitra D Dimitriadou Eftychia E Gontar Julia J Goossens Veerle V Maurer Maria M Spinella Francesca F Vermeulen Nathalie N De Rycke Martine M

Human reproduction open 20200529 3

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 The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for PGD, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated, and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary.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) ...[more]

PMID: 32500102

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat are the trends and developments in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2018 as compared to previous years?Summary answerThe main trends observed in this 21st dataset on PGT are that the implementation of trophectoderm biopsy with comprehensive whole-genome testing is most often applied for PGT-A and concurrent PGT-M/SR/A, while for PGT-M and PGT-SR, single-cell testing with PCR and FISH still prevail.What is known alreadySince it was established in 1997, the ESHRE PGT Consortium has been collecting and analysing data from mainly European PGT centres. To date, 20 datasets and an overview of the first 10 years of data collections have been published.Study design size durationThe data for PGT analyses performed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 with a 2-year follow-up after analysis were provided by participating centres on a voluntary basis. Data were collected using an online platform, which is based on genetic analysis and has been in use since 2016.Participants/materials setting methodsData on biopsy method, diagnostic technology, and clinical outcome were submitted by 44 centres. Records with analyses for more than one PGT for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) and/or PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR), or with inconsistent data regarding the PGT modality, were excluded. All transfers performed within 2 years after the analysis were included, enabling the calculation of cumulative pregnancy rates. Data analysis, calculations, and preparation of figures and tables were carried out by expert co-authors.Main results and the role of chanceThe current data collection from 2018 covers a total of 1388 analyses for PGT-M, 462 analyses for PGT-SR, 3003 analyses for PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A), and 338 analyses for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A.The application of blastocyst biopsy is gradually rising for PGT-M (from 19% in 2016-2017 to 33% in 2018), is status quo for PGT-SR (from 30% in 2016-2017 to 33% in 2018) and has become the most used biopsy stage for PGT-A (from 87% in 2016-2017 to 98% in 2018) and for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A (96%). The use of comprehensive, whole-genome amplification (WGA)-based diagnostic technology showed a small decrease for PGT-M (from 15% in 2016-2017 to 12% in 2018) and for PGT-SR (from 50% in 2016-2017 to 44% in 2018). Comprehensive testing was, however, the main technology for PGT-A (from 93% in 2016-2017 to 98% in 2018). WGA-based testing was also widely used for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A, as a standalone technique (74%) or in combination with PCR or FISH (24%). Trophectoderm biopsy and comprehensive testing strategies are linked with higher diagnostic efficiencies and improved clinical outcomes per embryo transfer.Limitations reasons for cautionThe findings apply to the data submitted by 44 participating centres and do not represent worldwide trends in PGT. Details on the health of babies born were not provided in this manuscript.Wider implications of the findingsThe Consortium datasets provide a valuable resource for following trends in PGT practice.Study funding/competing interestsThe study has no external funding, and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared.Trial registration numberN/A.

Project description:Study questionWhat are the trends and developments in pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2016-2017 as compared to previous years?Summary answerThe main trends observed in this 19th and 20th data set on PGT are that trophectoderm biopsy has become the main biopsy stage for PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A) and that the implementation of comprehensive testing technologies is the most advanced with PGT-A.What is known alreadySince it was established in 1997, the ESHRE PGT Consortium has been collecting and analysing data from mainly European PGT centres. To date, 18 data sets and an overview of the first 10 years of data collections have been published.Study design size durationThe data for PGT analyses performed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017 with a 2-year follow-up after analysis were provided by participating centres on a voluntary basis. Data were collected using a new online platform, which is based on genetic analysis as opposed to the former cycle-based format.Participants/materials setting methodsData on biopsy method, diagnostic technology and clinical outcome were submitted by 61 centres. Records with analyses for more than one PGT for monogenic/single gene defects (PGT-M) and/or PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) indication or with inconsistent data regarding the PGT modality were excluded. All transfers performed within 2 years after the analysis were included enabling the calculation of cumulative pregnancy rates. Data analysis, calculations, figures and tables were made by expert co-authors.Main results and the role of chanceThe current data collection from 2016 to 2017 covers a total of 3098 analyses for PGT-M, 1018 analyses for PGT-SR, 4033 analyses for PGT-A and 654 analyses for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A.The application of blastocyst biopsy is gradually rising for PGT-M (from 8-12% in 2013-2015 to 19% in 2016-2017), is status quo for PGT-R (from 22-36% in 2013-2015 to 30% in 2016-2017) and has become the preferential biopsy stage for PGT-A (from 23-36% in 2013-2015 to 87% in 2016-2017). For concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A, biopsy was primarily performed at the blastocyst stage (93%). The use of comprehensive diagnostic technology showed a similar trend with a small increased use for PGT-M (from 9-12% in 2013-2015 to 15% in 2016-2017) and a status quo for PGT-SR (from 36-58% in 2013-2015 to 50% in 2016-2017). Comprehensive testing was the main technology for PGT-A (from 66-75% in 2013-2015 to 93% in 2016-2017) and for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A (93%).Limitations reasons for cautionThe findings apply to the data submitted by 61 participating centres and do not represent worldwide trends in PGT. Details on the health of babies born were not provided in this manuscript.Wider implications of the findingsBeing the largest data collection on PGT in Europe/worldwide, the data sets provide a valuable resource for following trends in PGT practice.Study funding/competing interestsThe study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared.Trial registration numberN/A.

Project description:Study questionWhat are the trends and developments in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2013-2015 as compared to previous years?Summary answerThe main trends observed in the retrospective data collections 2013-2015, representing valuable data on PGT activity in (mainly) Europe, are the increased application of trophectoderm biopsy at the cost of cleavage stage biopsy and the continuing expansion of comprehensive testing technology in PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements and for aneuploidies (PGT-SR and PGT-A).What is known alreadySince it was established in 1997, the ESHRE PGT Consortium has been collecting data from international PGT centres. To date, 15 data sets and an overview of the first 10 years of data collections have been published.Study design size durationCollection of (mainly) European data by the PGT Consortium for ESHRE. The data for PGT cycles performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015 were provided by participating centres on a voluntary basis. For the collection of cycle, pregnancy and baby data, separate, pre-designed MS Excel tables were used.Participants/materials setting methodsData were submitted by 59, 60 and 59 centres respectively for 2013, 2014 and 2015 (full PGT Consortium members). Records with incomplete or inconsistent data were excluded from the calculations. Corrections, calculations, figures and tables were made by expert co-authors.Main results and the role of chanceFor data collection XVI/XVII/XVIII, 59/60/59 centres reported data on 8164/9769/11 120 cycles with oocyte retrieval: 5020/6278/7155 cycles for PGT-A, 2026/2243/2661 cycles for PGT for monogenic/single gene defects, 1039/1189/1231 cycles for PGT-SR and 79/59/73 cycles for sexing for X-linked diseases. From 2013 until 2015, the uptake of biopsy at the blastocyst stage was mainly observed in cycles for PGT-A (from 23% to 36%) and PGT-SR (from 22% to 36%), alongside the increased application of comprehensive testing technology (from 66% to 75% in PGT-A and from 36% to 58% in PGT-SR).Limitations reasons for cautionThe findings apply to the 59/60/59 participating centres and may not represent worldwide trends in PGT. Data were collected retrospectively and no details of the follow-up on PGT pregnancies and babies born were provided.Wider implications of the findingsBeing the largest data collection on PGT worldwide, detailed information about ongoing developments in the field is provided.Study funding/competing interestsThe study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared.Trial registration numberN/A.

Project description:Study questionWhat recommendations can be provided to improve terminology for normal and ectopic pregnancy description on ultrasound?Summary answerThe present ESHRE document provides 17 consensus recommendations on how to describe normally sited and different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound.What is known alreadyCurrent diagnostic criteria stipulate that each type of ectopic pregnancy can be defined by clear anatomical landmarks which facilitates reaching a correct diagnosis. However, a clear definition of normally sited pregnancies and a comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancies are still lacking.Study design size durationA working group of members of the ESHRE Special Interest Group in Implantation and Early Pregnancy (SIG-IEP) and selected experts in ultrasound was formed in order to write recommendations on the classification of ectopic pregnancies.Participants/materials setting methodsThe working group included nine members of different nationalities with internationally recognised experience in ultrasound and diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. This document is developed according to the manual for development of ESHRE recommendations for good practice. The recommendations were discussed until consensus by the working group, supported by a survey among the members of the ESHRE SIG-IEP.Main results and the role of chanceA clear definition of normally sited pregnancy on ultrasound scan is important to avoid misdiagnosis of uterine ectopic pregnancies. A comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancy must include definitions and descriptions of each type of ectopic pregnancy. Only a classification which provides descriptions and diagnostic criteria for all possible locations of ectopic pregnancy would be fit for use in routine clinical practice. The working group formulated 17 recommendations on the diagnosis of the different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. In addition, for each of the types of ectopic pregnancy, a schematic representation and examples on 2D and 3D ultrasound are provided.Limitations reasons for cautionOwing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical and technical expertise.Wider implications of the findingsThis document is expected to have a significant impact on clinical practice in ultrasound for early pregnancy. The development of this terminology will help to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.Study funding/competing interestsThe meetings of the working group were funded by ESHRE. T.T. declares speakers' fees from GE Healthcare. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Trial registration numberN/A.DisclaimerThis Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE's GPRs should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor 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, nor variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE's GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets