Outcomes of IVF cycles coupled with PGS by aCGH of embryos from donor and autologous oocytes, transferred after vitrification to women of advanced maternal age

References

• Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1846–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod 2016. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1093/molehr/gaw033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:454–546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farahmand K, Kalantari H, Fakhri M, et al. Evaluation of 1100 couples with recurrent pregnancy loss using conventional cytogenetic, PGD, and PGS: hype or hope. Gynecol Endocrinol 2016;32:483–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakharova E, Zaletova V, Krivokharchenko A. Biopsy of human morula-stage embryos: outcome of 215 IVF/ICSI cycles with PGS. PLoS One 2014;9:e106433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moayeri M, Saeidi H, Modarresi MH, Hashemi M. The effect of preimplantation genetic screening on implantation rate in women over 35 years of age. Cell J 2016;18:13–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Salem SA, Liu X, et al. Selection of euploid blastocysts for cryopreservation with array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) results in increased implantation rates in subsequent frozen and thawed embryo transfer cycles. Mol Cytogenet 2013;6:32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0140779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod 2015;30:473–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar G, Majumdar A, Lall M, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for all 24 chromosomes by microarray comparative genomic hybridization significantly increases implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with poor prognosis. J Hum Reprod Sci 2016;9:94–100
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ma GC, Chen HF, Yang YS, et al. A pilot proof-of-principle study to compare fresh and vitrified cycle preimplantation genetic screening by chromosome microarray and next generation sequencing. Mol Cytogenet 2016;9:25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Purata J, Lee J, Whitehouse M, et al. Reproductive outcome is optimized by genomic embryo screening, vitrification, and subsequent transfer into a prepared synchronous endometrium. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:401–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orvieto R, Shuly Y, Brengauz M, Feldman B. Should pre-implantation genetic screening be implemented to routine clinical practice? Gynecol Endocrinol 2016;32:506–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiegs WA, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh HD, et al. Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:893–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2089–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 2011;26:480–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson DS, Cinnioglu C, Ross R, et al. Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:944–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capalbo A, Wright G, Elliott T, et al. FISH reanalysis of inner cell mass and trophectoderm samples of previously array-CGH screened blastocysts shows high accuracy of diagnosis and no major diagnostic impact of mosaicism at the blastocysts stage. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2298–307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiegs WA, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh HD, Grifo J. Clinical error rate of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in euploid blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2015;104:e275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colls P, Coates A, Peters A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at blastocyst stage by array comparative genomic hybridization. Error rate determination. Fertil Steril 2013;100:S196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanches-Garcia J, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril 2011;95:953–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escudero T, Ribustello L, Sumarocca M, Munne S. Next generation sequencing (NGS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) discovers mosaicism is independent of age. Fertil Steril 2016;105:e19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Kathleen HH, et al. Aneuploidy across individual chromosomes at the embryonic level in trophectoderm biopsies: changes with patient age and chromosome structure. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:1501–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:281–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng A, Wang H. Assessment of aneuploidy formation in human blastocysts resulting from cryopreserved donor eggs. Mol Cytogenet 2015;8:12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar